Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Turner v. Thompson, 98-6993 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-6993 Visitors: 6
Filed: Feb. 05, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6993 LAWRENCE TURNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus C. E. THOMPSON, Warden, Staunton Correctional Center; FAYE W. MCCAULEY, Operations Office, Staunton Correctional Center; J. R. FLOYD, Property Control Officer, Staunton Correction- al Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-563-R) Submitted:
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6993 LAWRENCE TURNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus C. E. THOMPSON, Warden, Staunton Correctional Center; FAYE W. MCCAULEY, Operations Office, Staunton Correctional Center; J. R. FLOYD, Property Control Officer, Staunton Correction- al Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-563-R) Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 5, 1999 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Martha Murphey Parrish, Assis- tant Attorney General, Lance Bradford Leggitt, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Lawrence Turner appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. We deny Turner’s motion to consolidate this appeal with appeal number 98-6904, and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Turner v. Thompson, No. CA-96-563-R (W.D. Va. June 16, 1998). 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 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