Filed: Aug. 12, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6521 WILLIAM ERNEST HOWARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-807-R) Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 12, 1996 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William E
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6521 WILLIAM ERNEST HOWARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-807-R) Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 12, 1996 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Er..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6521 WILLIAM ERNEST HOWARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-807-R) Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 12, 1996 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Ernest Howard, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. Howard v. Angelone, No. CA-95-807-R (W.D. Va. Mar. 26, 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
