Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

De'Lonta v. Angelone, 00-7732 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-7732 Visitors: 19
Filed: Apr. 24, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7732 OPHELIA AZRIEL DE’LONTA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE; M. V. SMITH, Dr.; R. HULBERT, Dr.; C. J. ANGLIKER, Dr.; DOCTOR WRAY; DOCTOR SWETTER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-99-642-7) Submitted: March 20, 2001 Decided: April 24, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7732 OPHELIA AZRIEL DE’LONTA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE; M. V. SMITH, Dr.; R. HULBERT, Dr.; C. J. ANGLIKER, Dr.; DOCTOR WRAY; DOCTOR SWETTER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-99-642-7) Submitted: March 20, 2001 Decided: April 24, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ophelia Azriel De’Lonta, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assis- tant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; George W. Wooten, Peter Duane Vieth, WOOTEN & HART, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia; Heather Marie Kofron, WRIGHT, ROBINSON, OSTHIMER & TATUM, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ophelia A. De’Lonta appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 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. See De’Lonta v. Angelone, No. CA-99-642-7 (W.D. Va. Nov. 21, 2000). 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
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