Filed: Jan. 28, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2299 WAYNE BROWNING, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (CA-99-597-3) Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: January 28, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne Browning, Appel
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2299 WAYNE BROWNING, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (CA-99-597-3) Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: January 28, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne Browning, Appell..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2299 WAYNE BROWNING, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (CA-99-597-3) Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: January 28, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne Browning, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Wayne Browning appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) 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 Browning v. West Virginia, No. CA-99-597-3 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 10, 1999). 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
