Filed: Mar. 01, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2367 CHARLES DAVIS BURRELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM R. PALMER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-613-3) Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 1, 2000 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. C
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2367 CHARLES DAVIS BURRELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM R. PALMER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-613-3) Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 1, 2000 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ch..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2367 CHARLES DAVIS BURRELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM R. PALMER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-613-3) Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 1, 2000 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Davis Burrell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Charles Davis Burrell appeals the district court’s order deny- ing relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. 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 Burrell v. Palmer, No. CA-99-613-3 (E.D. Va. Sept. 7, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
