Filed: Sep. 23, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6782 MELVIN CORNELIOUS WILSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus B. ZOLICOFFER, Lieutenant; E. MORRIS, Sergeant; E. CLARK, Assistant Warden; W. H. TUCKER, Captain; E. MOHEAD, Sergeant; J. V. BEALE, Deputy Warden; RUFUS FLEMING, Regional Director; J. M. JABE, Chief Warden; RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6782 MELVIN CORNELIOUS WILSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus B. ZOLICOFFER, Lieutenant; E. MORRIS, Sergeant; E. CLARK, Assistant Warden; W. H. TUCKER, Captain; E. MOHEAD, Sergeant; J. V. BEALE, Deputy Warden; RUFUS FLEMING, Regional Director; J. M. JABE, Chief Warden; RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6782 MELVIN CORNELIOUS WILSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus B. ZOLICOFFER, Lieutenant; E. MORRIS, Sergeant; E. CLARK, Assistant Warden; W. H. TUCKER, Captain; E. MOHEAD, Sergeant; J. V. BEALE, Deputy Warden; RUFUS FLEMING, Regional Director; J. M. JABE, Chief Warden; RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-549-2) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 23, 1997 Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Melvin Cornelious Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. Wilson v. Zolicoffer, No. CA-96-549-2 (E.D. Va. May 29, 1997). 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