Filed: Aug. 01, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6335 CHEVY RAMAT SHIVAEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus E. M. CUBE, M.D., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-98-780-7) Submitted: July 20, 2000 Decided: August 1, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chevy Ramat Shivaee, Appellant Pro Se. Pete
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6335 CHEVY RAMAT SHIVAEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus E. M. CUBE, M.D., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-98-780-7) Submitted: July 20, 2000 Decided: August 1, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chevy Ramat Shivaee, Appellant Pro Se. Peter..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6335 CHEVY RAMAT SHIVAEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus E. M. CUBE, M.D., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-98-780-7) Submitted: July 20, 2000 Decided: August 1, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chevy Ramat Shivaee, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Duane Vieth, WOOTEN & HART, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Chevy Ramat Shivaee appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Shivaee’s motion for appointment of counsel and we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Shivaee v. Cube, No. CA-98-780-7 (W.D. Va. Feb. 24, 2000). 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
