Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Randolph v. Swetter, 95-8588 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-8588 Visitors: 30
Filed: Feb. 29, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-8588 WILLIAM BERNARD RANDOLPH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DON A. SWETTER, Dr; DR. OHAI; J. KENDRICKS, Dr.; WARDEN JABE; R. SMITH, Shop Foreman, Correctional Medical Service; W. P. WELCH, Hospital Head, Deputy Warden; WARDEN BASS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-370-3) Submitted:
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-8588 WILLIAM BERNARD RANDOLPH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DON A. SWETTER, Dr; DR. OHAI; J. KENDRICKS, Dr.; WARDEN JABE; R. SMITH, Shop Foreman, Correctional Medical Service; W. P. WELCH, Hospital Head, Deputy Warden; WARDEN BASS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-370-3) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 29, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Bernard Randolph, Appellant Pro Se. David Charles Bowen, WILLCOX & SAVAGE, Norfolk, Virginia; Mary Elizabeth Shea, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Jeff Wayne Rosen, Lisa Ehrich, ADLER, ROSEN & PETERS, P.C., Virginia Beach, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. Randolph v. Swetter, No. CA-95-370-3 (E.D. Va. Dec. 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. 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