Filed: Mar. 07, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7449 LONNIE LEE STOUT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAUL KIRBY, Commissioner, Department of Corrections, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-99-131-5) Submitted: February 16, 2001 Decided: March 7, 2001 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7449 LONNIE LEE STOUT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAUL KIRBY, Commissioner, Department of Corrections, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-99-131-5) Submitted: February 16, 2001 Decided: March 7, 2001 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7449 LONNIE LEE STOUT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAUL KIRBY, Commissioner, Department of Corrections, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-99-131-5) Submitted: February 16, 2001 Decided: March 7, 2001 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lonnie Lee Stout, Appellant Pro Se. Scott E. Johnson, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia; Charles Patrick Houdyschell, Jr., WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CORREC- TIONS, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Lonnie Lee Stout appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) 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. Stout v. Kirby, No. CA-99-131-5 (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 20, 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