Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Brim v. Huffman, 96-7154 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7154 Visitors: 9
Filed: Oct. 25, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7154 ERNEST EDWARD BRIM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PATRICIA L. HUFFMAN; R.A. YOUNG; RON ANGELONE; PADMAJA POLAVARAPU, Physician; DENNIS M. SPRAGUE; D.W. BARNES; OFFICE OF HEALTH SER- VICES; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-95-1264-R) Submitted: October 17, 1996 De
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7154 ERNEST EDWARD BRIM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PATRICIA L. HUFFMAN; R.A. YOUNG; RON ANGELONE; PADMAJA POLAVARAPU, Physician; DENNIS M. SPRAGUE; D.W. BARNES; OFFICE OF HEALTH SER- VICES; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-95-1264-R) Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 25, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ernest Edward Brim, Appellant Pro Se. Lance Bradford Leggitt, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Mark Dudley Obenshain, WHARTON, ALDHIZER & WEAVER, Harrisonburg, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 re- lief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Brim v. Huffman, No. CA-95-1264-R (W.D. Va. June 26, 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
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