Filed: Dec. 04, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6749 RICHARD WADE KENDRICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN B. METZGER, III; SANDRA COMBS; LINDA PITTMAN; JOSEPH LEWIS; WINNIE DIXON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-95-679-R) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 4, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpub
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6749 RICHARD WADE KENDRICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN B. METZGER, III; SANDRA COMBS; LINDA PITTMAN; JOSEPH LEWIS; WINNIE DIXON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-95-679-R) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 4, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpubl..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6749 RICHARD WADE KENDRICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN B. METZGER, III; SANDRA COMBS; LINDA PITTMAN; JOSEPH LEWIS; WINNIE DIXON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-95-679-R) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 4, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Wade Kendrick, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Elizabeth Shea, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 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. Kendrick v. Metzger, No. CA-95-679-R (W.D. Va. Apr. 16, 1996). We 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
