Filed: Jan. 17, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7287 FREDRICK LYNWOOD FOLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus F. S. TAYLOR, III; P. LIGHTNER; R. W. BYRD; MAJOR DAY; R. F. KEELER, Doctor, Defendants - Appellees. No. 95-7301 FREDRICK LYNWOOD FOLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CAPTAIN BOYERS; J. MUELLER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk and Samuel G. Wilson, District Judges
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7287 FREDRICK LYNWOOD FOLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus F. S. TAYLOR, III; P. LIGHTNER; R. W. BYRD; MAJOR DAY; R. F. KEELER, Doctor, Defendants - Appellees. No. 95-7301 FREDRICK LYNWOOD FOLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CAPTAIN BOYERS; J. MUELLER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk and Samuel G. Wilson, District Judges...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7287 FREDRICK LYNWOOD FOLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus F. S. TAYLOR, III; P. LIGHTNER; R. W. BYRD; MAJOR DAY; R. F. KEELER, Doctor, Defendants - Appellees. No. 95-7301 FREDRICK LYNWOOD FOLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CAPTAIN BOYERS; J. MUELLER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk and Samuel G. Wilson, District Judges. (CA-95-873-R, CA-95-249-R) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 17, 1996 Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fredrick Lynwood Foley, Appellant Pro Se. Lance Bradford Leggitt, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) complaints. We have reviewed the records and the district court's opinions and find no rever- sible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the dis- trict court. Foley v. Taylor, No. CA-95-873-R; Foley v. Boyers, No. CA-95-249-R (W.D. Va. Aug. 21, 1995; Aug. 9, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2