Filed: Jun. 23, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6407 ANTHONY RAY JACOBS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HAMPTON ROADS REGIONAL JAIL, Mail Room, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-99-200-2) Submitted: June 17, 1999 Decided: June 23, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6407 ANTHONY RAY JACOBS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HAMPTON ROADS REGIONAL JAIL, Mail Room, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-99-200-2) Submitted: June 17, 1999 Decided: June 23, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6407 ANTHONY RAY JACOBS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HAMPTON ROADS REGIONAL JAIL, Mail Room, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-99-200-2) Submitted: June 17, 1999 Decided: June 23, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Ray Jacobs, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Anthony Ray Jacobs 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. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Jacobs v. Hampton Roads Regional Jail, No. CA-99-200-2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 9, 1999). We dispense with oral argu- ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre- sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
