Filed: Aug. 21, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6643 ROBERT LEE BROCK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHALE ROACH, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-95-775-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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Brock,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6643 ROBERT LEE BROCK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHALE ROACH, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-95-775-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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Brock, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6643 ROBERT LEE BROCK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHALE ROACH, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-95-775-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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Brock, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 order denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) action. 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. Brock v. Roach, No. CA-95-775-R (W.D. Va. Apr. 4, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and 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
