Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Vette v. Allen, 96-6204 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6204 Visitors: 29
Filed: Jul. 09, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6204 CHARLES RAYMOND VETTE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGE ALLEN, Governor; RON ANGELONE; L. W. HUFFMAN; CHIEF PHYSICIAN; DOCTOR SMITH, Urologist; DOCTOR HOLLAND; DOCTOR SAKER; DOCTOR ALVIG; NURSE WILSON; D. T. MAHON; WARDEN NEUMEYAR, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-95-256-R) Submitted: June 20,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6204 CHARLES RAYMOND VETTE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGE ALLEN, Governor; RON ANGELONE; L. W. HUFFMAN; CHIEF PHYSICIAN; DOCTOR SMITH, Urologist; DOCTOR HOLLAND; DOCTOR SAKER; DOCTOR ALVIG; NURSE WILSON; D. T. MAHON; WARDEN NEUMEYAR, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-95-256-R) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 9, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Raymond Vette, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Campbell Alexander, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Mark Sheridan Brennan, WRIGHT, ROBINSON, OSTHIMER & TATUM, Richmond, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. § 1983 (1988) complaint and denying his request for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988). 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. Vette v. Allen, No. CA-95-256-R (W.D. Va. Jan. 29, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion for 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. We also deny Appellant's motion to add a defendant to the action. 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