Filed: Aug. 21, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6514 EUGENE STEPHENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEPUTY HUFFMAN; ROANOKE CITY JAIL, Defendants - Appellees. No. 96-6515 EUGENE STEPHENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KAREN MILLER, Dr.; MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, Roanoke City Jail; A. HUDSON, Sheriff, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-288-R, CA-
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6514 EUGENE STEPHENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEPUTY HUFFMAN; ROANOKE CITY JAIL, Defendants - Appellees. No. 96-6515 EUGENE STEPHENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KAREN MILLER, Dr.; MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, Roanoke City Jail; A. HUDSON, Sheriff, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-288-R, CA-9..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6514 EUGENE STEPHENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEPUTY HUFFMAN; ROANOKE CITY JAIL, Defendants - Appellees. No. 96-6515 EUGENE STEPHENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KAREN MILLER, Dr.; MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, Roanoke City Jail; A. HUDSON, Sheriff, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-288-R, CA-96-287-R) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 21, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eugene Stephens, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) complaints. We have reviewed the records and the district court's opinions and find no rever- sible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the dis- trict court. Stephens v. Huffman, No. CA-96-288-R; Stephens v. Miller, CA-96-287-R (W.D. Va. Mar. 22, 1996). 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 2