Filed: Oct. 25, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7281 GEORGE EARL PERRY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BETSY DAVIS BEAMER, Secretary of the Commonwealth, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-265) Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 25, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge Affirmed by unp
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7281 GEORGE EARL PERRY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BETSY DAVIS BEAMER, Secretary of the Commonwealth, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-265) Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 25, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge Affirmed by unpu..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7281 GEORGE EARL PERRY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BETSY DAVIS BEAMER, Secretary of the Commonwealth, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-265) 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Decided: October 25, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Earl Perry, Appellant Pro Se. James Walter Hopper, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 (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. Perry v. Beamer, No. CA-96-265 (E.D. Va. July 26, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion for 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
