Filed: Feb. 05, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7598 SAMUEL MELVIN WARNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus B. PORTMAN; J. MEURRENS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-96-583-R) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: February 5, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Melvin Warner, Appe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7598 SAMUEL MELVIN WARNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus B. PORTMAN; J. MEURRENS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-96-583-R) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: February 5, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Melvin Warner, Appel..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7598 SAMUEL MELVIN WARNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus B. PORTMAN; J. MEURRENS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-96-583-R) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: February 5, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Melvin Warner, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Samuel Melvin Warner, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) as frivolous. 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. Warner v. Portman, No. CA-96- 583-R (W.D. Va. Sept. 30, 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 deci- sional process. AFFIRMED 2
