Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Sawyer v. Murray, 96-6537 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6537 Visitors: 50
Filed: Aug. 21, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6537 RONALD JERRY SAWYER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EDWIN MURRAY; R. A. YOUNG; LARRY HUFFMAN; K. L. OSBORNE, Warden; G. D. JOHNSON; CORREC- TIONAL OFFICER RUSSELL; BOB STAMPER, Sergeant; LONNIE SAUNDERS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HUMPHRIES; V. V. GRANT; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WARNER; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MINTER; CORREC- TIONAL OFFICER WAGNER; LIEUTENANT DOSS; JOHNNIE RUSSELL, Hearings Officer; CORREC- TIONAL OFFICER SHEFFY; CO
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6537 RONALD JERRY SAWYER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EDWIN MURRAY; R. A. YOUNG; LARRY HUFFMAN; K. L. OSBORNE, Warden; G. D. JOHNSON; CORREC- TIONAL OFFICER RUSSELL; BOB STAMPER, Sergeant; LONNIE SAUNDERS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HUMPHRIES; V. V. GRANT; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WARNER; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MINTER; CORREC- TIONAL OFFICER WAGNER; LIEUTENANT DOSS; JOHNNIE RUSSELL, Hearings Officer; CORREC- TIONAL OFFICER SHEFFY; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER CREGGAR; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BLEVINS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-389-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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Jerry Sawyer, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 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. Sawyer v. Murray, No. CA-94-389-R (W.D. Va. Mar. 7, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 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