Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Leach v. Canterbury, 00-7203 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-7203 Visitors: 19
Filed: Dec. 21, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7203 WALTER M. LEACH, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH UNDERWOOD, Lieutenant; DON PUGH, Cor- poral; JAMES E. FOX; JERRY CANTERBURY; DEAN BARNES; TIMOTHY LUIKART; MATTHEW GIBSON, Defendants - Appellees, and STEVEN CANTERBURY; BETTY EWING, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-422-5) Submitted
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7203 WALTER M. LEACH, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH UNDERWOOD, Lieutenant; DON PUGH, Cor- poral; JAMES E. FOX; JERRY CANTERBURY; DEAN BARNES; TIMOTHY LUIKART; MATTHEW GIBSON, Defendants - Appellees, and STEVEN CANTERBURY; BETTY EWING, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-422-5) Submitted: December 14, 2000 Decided: December 21, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter M. Leach, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Chad Marlo Cardinal, As- sistant Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Walter M. Leach, Jr., appeals the district court’s order deny- ing 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 re- versible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Leach v. Canterbury, No. CA-99-422-5 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 1, 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