Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Winn v. Angelone, 00-7375 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-7375 Visitors: 20
Filed: Dec. 22, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7375 ELIJAH MILES WINN, a/k/a Joshua M. Nowitsky, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE; LISA EDWARDS, Warden, DWCC; L. W. HUFFMAN, Northern Regional Direc- tor of the Virginia Department of Corrections, 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-00-265) Submitted: December 14, 2000 Decided:
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7375 ELIJAH MILES WINN, a/k/a Joshua M. Nowitsky, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE; LISA EDWARDS, Warden, DWCC; L. W. HUFFMAN, Northern Regional Direc- tor of the Virginia Department of Corrections, 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-00-265) Submitted: December 14, 2000 Decided: December 22, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elijah Miles Winn, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Elijah Miles Wynn appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to the Appellees, dismissing his civil rights complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. 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 Winn v. Angelone, No. CA-00-265 (W.D. Va. Aug. 14 & Sept. 6, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials 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