Filed: Aug. 06, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6689 JAMES S. POTTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WALTER SMITTLE, III, State Fire Marshall; L. DARL CROSS, Deputy State Fire Marshall; JAMES LILLER, Warden, Pruntytown Correctional Center; MIKE GILMORE, Correctional Programs Manger; JOHN MARKLEY, Case Manager, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. William M. Kidd, Senior District J
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6689 JAMES S. POTTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WALTER SMITTLE, III, State Fire Marshall; L. DARL CROSS, Deputy State Fire Marshall; JAMES LILLER, Warden, Pruntytown Correctional Center; MIKE GILMORE, Correctional Programs Manger; JOHN MARKLEY, Case Manager, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. William M. Kidd, Senior District Ju..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6689 JAMES S. POTTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WALTER SMITTLE, III, State Fire Marshall; L. DARL CROSS, Deputy State Fire Marshall; JAMES LILLER, Warden, Pruntytown Correctional Center; MIKE GILMORE, Correctional Programs Manger; JOHN MARKLEY, Case Manager, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. William M. Kidd, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-139) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 6, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James S. Potter, Appellant Pro Se. Chad Marlo Cardinal, Assistant Attorney General, George Freeman, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Charleston, West 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. Potter v. Smittle, No. CA-95-139 (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 22, 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