Filed: Oct. 24, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6712 JESSE JAMES PRITCHARD, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGE ALLEN; ED MURRAY; E. C. MORRIS; L. M. SAUNDERS; STU TAYLOR; MAJOR DAY; D. BOYERS, Captain; LIEUTENANT BOYERS; CAPTAIN HALLOWAY; LIEUTENANT LYLES; SERGEANT SPROUSE; GUARD PERRY; GUARD SILVEA; INVESTIGATOR DURY; RONALD ANGELONE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6712 JESSE JAMES PRITCHARD, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGE ALLEN; ED MURRAY; E. C. MORRIS; L. M. SAUNDERS; STU TAYLOR; MAJOR DAY; D. BOYERS, Captain; LIEUTENANT BOYERS; CAPTAIN HALLOWAY; LIEUTENANT LYLES; SERGEANT SPROUSE; GUARD PERRY; GUARD SILVEA; INVESTIGATOR DURY; RONALD ANGELONE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. T..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6712
JESSE JAMES PRITCHARD, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GEORGE ALLEN; ED MURRAY; E. C. MORRIS; L. M.
SAUNDERS; STU TAYLOR; MAJOR DAY; D. BOYERS,
Captain; LIEUTENANT BOYERS; CAPTAIN HALLOWAY;
LIEUTENANT LYLES; SERGEANT SPROUSE; GUARD
PERRY; GUARD SILVEA; INVESTIGATOR DURY; RONALD
ANGELONE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.
(CA-95-319-R)
Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 24, 1996
Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jesse James Pritchard, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Martha Murphey
Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
2
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals 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. Pritchard v. Allen, No. CA-95-319-R (W.D. Va. Apr. 1, 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
3