Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Wright v. Fowler, 97-7780 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-7780
Filed: Sep. 17, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7780 CHRISTOPHER H. WRIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus R. D. FOWLER, Officer; TOBY MATTHEWS, Sheriff; DOCTOR STOKES, Henrico County Jail Medical; HENRICO COUNTY JAIL MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-96-730) Submitted: August 25, 1998 Decided: September 17, 1998 Before WIDENER a
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7780 CHRISTOPHER H. WRIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus R. D. FOWLER, Officer; TOBY MATTHEWS, Sheriff; DOCTOR STOKES, Henrico County Jail Medical; HENRICO COUNTY JAIL MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-96-730) Submitted: August 25, 1998 Decided: September 17, 1998 Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher H. Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Paul Rapisarda, Jr., County Attorney, James Thomas Moore, III, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Richmond, Virginia; Anton Joseph Stelly, THOMPSON, SMITHERS, NEWMAN & WADE, Richmond, Virginia; Carlyle Randolph Wimbish, III, Marvin Pierce Rucker, SANDS, ANDERSON, MARKS & MILLER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the magistrate judge’s order* denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. Wright v. Fowler, No. CA-96-730 (E.D. Va. Nov. 4, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c) (West 1993). 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer