Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Tunstall v. Ware, 01-6138 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6138 Visitors: 22
Filed: Apr. 24, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6138 HARVEY E. TUNSTALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CORPORAL WARE; CORPORAL WHITE; CORPORAL THOMPSON, Deputy Sheriffs/Jail Security; CAP- TAIN GERBER, Chief, Confinement Branch; MAJOR M.P. JACKSON, Commander, Correctional Services Division, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Barry R. Poretz, Magistrate Judge. (CA-00-528) Submitted: Apr
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6138 HARVEY E. TUNSTALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CORPORAL WARE; CORPORAL WHITE; CORPORAL THOMPSON, Deputy Sheriffs/Jail Security; CAP- TAIN GERBER, Chief, Confinement Branch; MAJOR M.P. JACKSON, Commander, Correctional Services Division, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Barry R. Poretz, Magistrate Judge. (CA-00-528) Submitted: April 13, 2001 Decided: April 24, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harvey E. Tunstall, Appellant Pro Se. James R. Parish, BRANDT, JENNINGS, ROBERTS, DAVIS & SNEE, Falls Church, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Harvey E. Tunstall appeals the magistrate judge’s order deny- ing relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint.* We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Tunstall v. Ware, No. CA-00-528 (E.D. Va. Dec. 12, 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 * The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994). 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