Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Brown v. Trent, 00-6486 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-6486 Visitors: 69
Filed: Aug. 30, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6486 PAUL DION BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGE TRENT; DAVID DEAN; MICHAEL COLEMAN, A.W.O., Official and Individual Capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, District Judge. (CA-98-350-5) Submitted: August 24, 2000 Decided: August 30, 2000 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6486 PAUL DION BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGE TRENT; DAVID DEAN; MICHAEL COLEMAN, A.W.O., Official and Individual Capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, District Judge. (CA-98-350-5) Submitted: August 24, 2000 Decided: August 30, 2000 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul Dion Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Jeanette Bray, George John Joseph, BAILEY & WYANT, P.L.L.C., Charleston, West Virginia; Leslie K. Kiser, Charles Patrick Houdyschell, Jr., WEST VIRGINIA DEPART- MENT OF CORRECTIONS, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Paul Dion Brown 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 in part the magistrate judge’s recommendation and sustaining the defendant’s objections and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Brown v. Trent, No. CA-98-350-5 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 23, 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
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