Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Eanes v. Duncil, 95-7849 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7849 Visitors: 18
Filed: Feb. 08, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7849 LLOYD EANES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM C. DUNCIL, Warden, Huttonsville Correctional Center; KEITH WEESE, Lieutenant Colonel; HERMAN COX, Major; WILLIAM ISLEI; ROY WHITE, Administrator of the Hospital; ERNEST HART, Doctor at Huttonsville Correctional Cen- ter; RANDOLPH COUNTY AMBULANCE SERVICE, Driver and everyone inside the ambulance, et al, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Cou
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7849 LLOYD EANES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM C. DUNCIL, Warden, Huttonsville Correctional Center; KEITH WEESE, Lieutenant Colonel; HERMAN COX, Major; WILLIAM ISLEI; ROY WHITE, Administrator of the Hospital; ERNEST HART, Doctor at Huttonsville Correctional Cen- ter; RANDOLPH COUNTY AMBULANCE SERVICE, Driver and everyone inside the ambulance, et al, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. William M. Kidd, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-89-2) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 8, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lloyd Eanes, Appellant Pro Se. Leslie K. Kiser, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia; John Everett Busch, Bridgette Rhoden Wilson, BUSCH & TALBOTT, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 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. Eanes v. Duncil, No. CA-94-89-2 (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 11, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer