Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Miller v. Kirby, 00-7083 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-7083 Visitors: 13
Filed: Nov. 01, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7083 CATHERINE J. MILLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAUL KIRBY, Commissioner, Division of Correc- tions; STEVEN FOX, Inmate movement coordi- nator, D.O.C., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (CA-99-789-2) Submitted: October 20, 2000 Decided: November 1, 2000 Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circ
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7083 CATHERINE J. MILLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAUL KIRBY, Commissioner, Division of Correc- tions; STEVEN FOX, Inmate movement coordi- nator, D.O.C., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (CA-99-789-2) Submitted: October 20, 2000 Decided: November 1, 2000 Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Catherine J. Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., David Paul Cleek, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia; Charles Patrick Houdyschell, Jr., WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Catherine J. Miller appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 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 affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Miller v. Kirby, No. CA-99-789-2 (S.D.W. Va. July 27, 2000). Miller’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 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