Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Davis v. Murray, 95-7850 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7850 Visitors: 88
Filed: Feb. 28, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7850 MILTON QUENTILLA DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EDWARD W. MURRAY, Correction Director; CITY OF NORFOLK, Defendants - Appellees, and DAVID MAPP, Former Sheriff, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-94-519-2) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 28, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7850 MILTON QUENTILLA DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EDWARD W. MURRAY, Correction Director; CITY OF NORFOLK, Defendants - Appellees, and DAVID MAPP, Former Sheriff, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-94-519-2) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 28, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Milton Quentilla Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Harold Phillip Juren, Deputy City Attorney, Norfolk, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 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. Davis v. Murray, No. CA-94-519-2 (E.D. Va. Oct. 4, 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. Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel is denied. AFFIRMED 2
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