Filed: May 17, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6344 LACY HUGHES JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LOUIS COLEMAN, Major, Danville City Jail; STEVE SALMON, Lieutenant, Danville City Jail; CAPTAIN FRANKIE HORNE; GARY OCTAVIS SWANSON; 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-00-2-7) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 1
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6344 LACY HUGHES JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LOUIS COLEMAN, Major, Danville City Jail; STEVE SALMON, Lieutenant, Danville City Jail; CAPTAIN FRANKIE HORNE; GARY OCTAVIS SWANSON; 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-00-2-7) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 17..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6344 LACY HUGHES JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LOUIS COLEMAN, Major, Danville City Jail; STEVE SALMON, Lieutenant, Danville City Jail; CAPTAIN FRANKIE HORNE; GARY OCTAVIS SWANSON; 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-00-2-7) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 17, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 order sum- marily dismissing his civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 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 Johnson v. Coleman, No. CA-00-2-7 (W.D. Va. Feb. 18, 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
