Filed: Feb. 25, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7799 DANIEL W. GARRETT, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RIVERSIDE REGIONAL JAIL, Institution; MEDICAL DEPARTMENT; DOCTOR WARD, Jail Doctor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-98-1350-2) Submitted: January 29, 1999 Decided: February 25, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7799 DANIEL W. GARRETT, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RIVERSIDE REGIONAL JAIL, Institution; MEDICAL DEPARTMENT; DOCTOR WARD, Jail Doctor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-98-1350-2) Submitted: January 29, 1999 Decided: February 25, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affir..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7799 DANIEL W. GARRETT, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RIVERSIDE REGIONAL JAIL, Institution; MEDICAL DEPARTMENT; DOCTOR WARD, Jail Doctor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-98-1350-2) Submitted: January 29, 1999 Decided: February 25, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel W. Garrett, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Daniel W. Garrett, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. 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. See Garrett v. Riverside Regional Jail, No. CA-98- 1350-2 (E.D. Va. Dec. 4, 1998). 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
