Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Fenstermacher v. Jarvis, 96-6087 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6087 Visitors: 4
Filed: Jun. 04, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6087 RICHARD LAMAR FENSTERMACHER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus L. W. JARVIS, Assistant Warden; C. N. LEWIS, Major; D. R. GUILLORY, Warden; LORETTA KELLEY, Assistant Warden; DONNA ANDERSON; V. WASHING- TON; I. T. GILMORE, Captain; C. E. DUNMOODIE, Captain; R. W. ROWLETTE, Lieutenant, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magis
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6087 RICHARD LAMAR FENSTERMACHER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus L. W. JARVIS, Assistant Warden; C. N. LEWIS, Major; D. R. GUILLORY, Warden; LORETTA KELLEY, Assistant Warden; DONNA ANDERSON; V. WASHING- TON; I. T. GILMORE, Captain; C. E. DUNMOODIE, Captain; R. W. ROWLETTE, Lieutenant, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-25) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 4, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Lamar Fenstermacher, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 magistrate judge's order* denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's opinion and find no rever- sible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magis- trate judge. Fenstermacher v. Jarvis, No. CA-95-25 (E.D. Va. Dec. 6, 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 * The parties consented to disposition of this case by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c) (West 1993). 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