Filed: Mar. 16, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7809 MICHAEL A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN SANDERS, West Virginia Department of Highways, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-114-2) Submitted: March 8, 2001 Decided: March 16, 2001 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7809 MICHAEL A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN SANDERS, West Virginia Department of Highways, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-114-2) Submitted: March 8, 2001 Decided: March 16, 2001 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7809 MICHAEL A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN SANDERS, West Virginia Department of Highways, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-114-2) Submitted: March 8, 2001 Decided: March 16, 2001 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael A. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Kozakewich, Jr., STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael A. Williams 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’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Williams’ motion for ap- pointment of counsel and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Williams v. Sanders, No. CA-99-114-2 (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 7, 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
