Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Childress v. Ervine, 96-7218 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7218 Visitors: 3
Filed: Dec. 19, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7218 LITTLE TOM CHILDRESS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. ERVINE; CALVIN GREGORY; D. MASTERSON; OFFI- CER FERGUSON; OFFICER ASSENAT, Defendants - Appellees. No. 96-7219 LITTLE TOM CHILDRESS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. ERVINE; RAYMON MORROW, a/k/a Morrison; ROANOKE CITY JAIL, Sheriff's Department, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7218 LITTLE TOM CHILDRESS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. ERVINE; CALVIN GREGORY; D. MASTERSON; OFFI- CER FERGUSON; OFFICER ASSENAT, Defendants - Appellees. No. 96-7219 LITTLE TOM CHILDRESS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. ERVINE; RAYMON MORROW, a/k/a Morrison; ROANOKE CITY JAIL, Sheriff's Department, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-575-R, CA-95-184-R) Submitted: December 12, 1996 Decided: December 19, 1996 2 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Little Tom Childress, Appellant Pro Se. Robert F. Rider, RIDER, THOMAS, CLEAVELAND, FERRIS & EAKIN, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the magistrate judge's entry of judgment by jury denying relief on his consolidated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaints. We have considered the issues Appellant raised in his informal brief, reviewed the record and the district court's judg- ment, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of relief under § 1983. Because there are no complex or substantial issues presented in these appeals, we deny Appellant's motions for appointment of counsel. 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 deci- sional process. AFFIRMED 3 4
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