Filed: Jan. 06, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7288 KEITH EARL GODWIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROBERT H. ANDERSON, III, Assistant Attorney General; E. EVERETT BAGNELL, Judge; E. PRESTON GRISSOM, Judge, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-958) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit J
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7288 KEITH EARL GODWIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROBERT H. ANDERSON, III, Assistant Attorney General; E. EVERETT BAGNELL, Judge; E. PRESTON GRISSOM, Judge, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-958) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Ju..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7288 KEITH EARL GODWIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROBERT H. ANDERSON, III, Assistant Attorney General; E. EVERETT BAGNELL, Judge; E. PRESTON GRISSOM, Judge, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-958) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith Earl Godwin, Appellant Pro Se. Maryann 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. Ac- cordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Godwin v. Anderson, No. CA-95-958 (E.D. Va. July 14, 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