Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Johnson v. Danville Sheriff's, 99-7228 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-7228 Visitors: 24
Filed: Nov. 10, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7228 LACY HUGHES JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DANVILLE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; LOUIS COLEMAN; FRANKIE HORNE, Captain; STEVE SALMON, Lieu- tenant; BELL SOUTH PHONE COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-491-7) Submitted: November 4, 1999 Decided: November 10, 1999 Before NIEMEYER,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7228 LACY HUGHES JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DANVILLE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; LOUIS COLEMAN; FRANKIE HORNE, Captain; STEVE SALMON, Lieu- tenant; BELL SOUTH PHONE COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-491-7) Submitted: November 4, 1999 Decided: November 10, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lacy Hughes Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Lacy Hughes Johnson appeals the district court’s orders deny- ing relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint and denying his motion filed under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s memorandum opinion and order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Johnson v. Danville Sheriff’s Dep’t., No. CA-99-491-7 (W.D. Va. Aug. 13 & 27, 1999). 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