Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Ballance v. Rowlette, 00-7559 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-7559 Visitors: 64
Filed: Apr. 26, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7559 KEVIN M. BALLANCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus R. W. ROWLETTE, Corrections Major and Chief of Security, ROSP, Defendant - Appellee, and COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; G. DEEDS, Warden, Red Onion State Prison; EDWARD W. MURRAY; LARRY TAYLOR; REGIONAL DIRECTOR YOUNG, Defendants. No. 00-7616 KEVIN M. BALLANCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus S. K. YOUNG, Warden; J. FORTNER, Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the Un
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7559 KEVIN M. BALLANCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus R. W. ROWLETTE, Corrections Major and Chief of Security, ROSP, Defendant - Appellee, and COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; G. DEEDS, Warden, Red Onion State Prison; EDWARD W. MURRAY; LARRY TAYLOR; REGIONAL DIRECTOR YOUNG, Defendants. No. 00-7616 KEVIN M. BALLANCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus S. K. YOUNG, Warden; J. FORTNER, Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-99-572-7, CA-99-746-7) Submitted: March 27, 2001 Decided: April 26, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin M. Ballance, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assis- tant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated cases, Kevin M. Ballance appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellees and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaints. We have reviewed the records and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Ballance v. Rowlette, No. CA-99-572-7 (W.D. Va. Sep. 27, 2000), and Ballance v. Young, No. CA-99-746-7 (W.D. Va. Oct. 12, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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