Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Honeyman v. Drew, 96-6578 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6578 Visitors: 9
Filed: Oct. 10, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6578 JEROME HONEYMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FRANK DREW, Sheriff; DR. GONZALES; NURSE HAN- SON; NURSE HOLCOM; NURSE PLUMMER; MAJOR SMITH; E. C. MORRIS; DAVID K. SMITH; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ZUMBRO, 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-95-583-R) Submitted: October 3, 1996 Decided: October 10,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6578 JEROME HONEYMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FRANK DREW, Sheriff; DR. GONZALES; NURSE HAN- SON; NURSE HOLCOM; NURSE PLUMMER; MAJOR SMITH; E. C. MORRIS; DAVID K. SMITH; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ZUMBRO, 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-95-583-R) Submitted: October 3, 1996 Decided: October 10, 1996 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome Honeyman, Appellant Pro Se. David Ernest Boelzner, WRIGHT, ROBINSON, OSTHIMER & TATUM, Richmond, Virginia; Jeff Wayne Rosen, ADLER, ROSEN & PETERS, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia; Alexander Leonard Taylor, Jr., 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 (1994) 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. Honeyman v. Drew, No. CA-95-583-R (W.D. Va. Mar. 26, 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