Filed: Jan. 24, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7423 AUDIE WAYNE TALLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus AUGUSTA CORRECTIONAL CENTER; COUNSELOR CARUSO; COUNSELOR NEALY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-95-948-R) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 24, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7423 AUDIE WAYNE TALLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus AUGUSTA CORRECTIONAL CENTER; COUNSELOR CARUSO; COUNSELOR NEALY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-95-948-R) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 24, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7423 AUDIE WAYNE TALLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus AUGUSTA CORRECTIONAL CENTER; COUNSELOR CARUSO; COUNSELOR NEALY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-95-948-R) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 24, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Audie Wayne Talley, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Talley v. Augusta Correctional Ctr., No. CA-95-948-R (W.D. Va. Aug. 29, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
