Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Jackson v. Farmer, 02-6617 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6617 Visitors: 21
Filed: Oct. 08, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6617 DONALD CORNELIUS JACKSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MS. FARMER, Henrico County Medical Administrator; MR. DENZLER, Henrico County Mailroom Officer; MS. JOHNSON, Henrico County Trusty Officer; MS. BOHANNON, Henrico County Head Nurse; H. DAILY, Lieutenant, Henrico County Jail, In charge of Henrico County Jail Operations; MICHAEL WADE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Easter
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6617 DONALD CORNELIUS JACKSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MS. FARMER, Henrico County Medical Administrator; MR. DENZLER, Henrico County Mailroom Officer; MS. JOHNSON, Henrico County Trusty Officer; MS. BOHANNON, Henrico County Head Nurse; H. DAILY, Lieutenant, Henrico County Jail, In charge of Henrico County Jail Operations; MICHAEL WADE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-00-29-2) Submitted: September 24, 2002 Decided: October 8, 2002 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald Cornelius Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Geoffrey Martin Bohn, CUNNINGHAM & ASSOCIATES, Arlington, Virginia; Richard Samuel Samet, GOODMAN, ALLEN & FILETTI, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Donald Cornelius Jackson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (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 Jackson v. Farmer, No. CA-00-29-2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 27, 2002). 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