Filed: Apr. 30, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1183 BASIL F. GRAHAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OHIO COUNTY SHERIFF, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-98-129-5) Submitted: April 20, 1999 Decided: April 30, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam op
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1183 BASIL F. GRAHAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OHIO COUNTY SHERIFF, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-98-129-5) Submitted: April 20, 1999 Decided: April 30, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1183 BASIL F. GRAHAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OHIO COUNTY SHERIFF, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-98-129-5) Submitted: April 20, 1999 Decided: April 30, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Basil F. Graham, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Basil F. Graham appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. According- ly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Graham v. Ohio County Sheriff, No. CA-98-129-5 (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 15, 1999). 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
