Filed: Jul. 15, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6372 PARRISH T. WALTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus V. A. YERBY, Lieutenant; S. M. GAYLE, Unit Nurse, Defendants - Appellees, and CAROLINE COUNTY UNIT #2 PRISON, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-97-1129-2) Submitted: July 6, 1999 Decided: July 15, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and KING, Circuit Judges. Aff
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6372 PARRISH T. WALTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus V. A. YERBY, Lieutenant; S. M. GAYLE, Unit Nurse, Defendants - Appellees, and CAROLINE COUNTY UNIT #2 PRISON, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-97-1129-2) Submitted: July 6, 1999 Decided: July 15, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6372 PARRISH T. WALTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus V. A. YERBY, Lieutenant; S. M. GAYLE, Unit Nurse, Defendants - Appellees, and CAROLINE COUNTY UNIT #2 PRISON, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-97-1129-2) Submitted: July 6, 1999 Decided: July 15, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Parrish T. Walton, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew P. Dullaghan, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Elizabeth Butterworth Stutts, MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Parrish T. Walton appeals the district court’s order dismiss- ing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) action. 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 Walton v. Yerby, No. CA-97-1129-2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 26, 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. AFFIRMED 2