Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Morke v. Merritt, 01-6104 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6104 Visitors: 41
Filed: Oct. 09, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6104 THOMAS R. MORKE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus F. MERRITT, Investigator; DENNIS TRENT, Unit Manager; SHIRLEY AVENT, Warden's Designee/ Agent; F. SHELBY SPENCE, Chief of Security; DAVID A. GARRAGHTY, Chief Warden; RUFUS FLEMING, Regional Director, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-98-1572-AM) S
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6104 THOMAS R. MORKE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus F. MERRITT, Investigator; DENNIS TRENT, Unit Manager; SHIRLEY AVENT, Warden's Designee/ Agent; F. SHELBY SPENCE, Chief of Security; DAVID A. GARRAGHTY, Chief Warden; RUFUS FLEMING, Regional Director, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-98-1572-AM) Submitted: August 31, 2001 Decided: October 9, 2001 Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas R. Morke, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Thomas R. Morke appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint, and a subsequent order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Morke v. Merritt, No. CA-98-1572- AM (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 7, 2000, entered Sept. 8, 2000; filed Nov. 27, 2000, entered Nov. 28, 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
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