Filed: Aug. 06, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1765 REEDIE J. WARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RAVENSWOOD VILLAGE NURSING HOME, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-342-6) Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 6, 1997 Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reedie J. Wa
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1765 REEDIE J. WARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RAVENSWOOD VILLAGE NURSING HOME, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-342-6) Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 6, 1997 Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reedie J. War..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1765 REEDIE J. WARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RAVENSWOOD VILLAGE NURSING HOME, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-342-6) Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 6, 1997 Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reedie J. Ward, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his complaint under 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915(e)(2)(B). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court, Ward v. Ravenswood Village, No. CA-97-342-6 (S.D.W. Va. May 15, 1997), and deny Appellant's motion for appointment of coun- sel. 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. DISMISSED 2
