Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Vanhoose v. Ferguson, 02-6581 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6581 Visitors: 7
Filed: Jun. 19, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6581 MEREDITH L. VANHOOSE, Plaintiff - Appellant, and DAVID D. ASHWORTH; DENNIS S. SULLIVAN; GARY LEE BASENBACK; DENNIS P. WOODARD; JOHN E. WORKMAN; FRANKIE KUHN; ROBERT CRUM, Plaintiffs, versus DAN FERGUSON, Administrator; DONALD STEPP; HERCIL GARTIN, Defendants - Appellees, and CABELL COUNTY JAIL; DALLAN FIELDS, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Hunging
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6581 MEREDITH L. VANHOOSE, Plaintiff - Appellant, and DAVID D. ASHWORTH; DENNIS S. SULLIVAN; GARY LEE BASENBACK; DENNIS P. WOODARD; JOHN E. WORKMAN; FRANKIE KUHN; ROBERT CRUM, Plaintiffs, versus DAN FERGUSON, Administrator; DONALD STEPP; HERCIL GARTIN, Defendants - Appellees, and CABELL COUNTY JAIL; DALLAN FIELDS, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Hungington. Robert J. Staker, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-200) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 19, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Meredith L. Vanhoose, Appellant Pro Se. Theresa Marlene Kirk, PULLIN, KNOPF, FOWLER & FLANAGAN, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Meredith Vanhoose appeals the district court’s judgment order granting summary judgment to Cabell County Jail and certain of its employees. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s memorandum order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Vanhoose v. Ferguson, No. CA-00-200 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 29, 2002). We also deny Vanhoose’s motion for appointment of counsel and/or attorney’s fees. 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