Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Kindley v. Hicks, 02-6732 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6732 Visitors: 13
Filed: Sep. 10, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6732 JESSIE BENJAMIN KINDLEY, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SERGEANT HICKS, Corrections Officer; SGT. COLEMAN, Corrections Officer; CORPORAL HYTE, Corrections Officer; CORPORAL BOWERS, Corrections Officer; SERGEANT LEA, Corrections Officer; RON ANGELONE, Executive Director; DOCTOR WRAY, Physician - Mecklenburg Medical; DOCTOR STURMER, Physician; MRS. WETHERBEE, Head Nurse - Mecklenburg Medical; SERGEANT FAGAN, Internal
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6732 JESSIE BENJAMIN KINDLEY, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SERGEANT HICKS, Corrections Officer; SGT. COLEMAN, Corrections Officer; CORPORAL HYTE, Corrections Officer; CORPORAL BOWERS, Corrections Officer; SERGEANT LEA, Corrections Officer; RON ANGELONE, Executive Director; DOCTOR WRAY, Physician - Mecklenburg Medical; DOCTOR STURMER, Physician; MRS. WETHERBEE, Head Nurse - Mecklenburg Medical; SERGEANT FAGAN, Internal Affairs, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-768-2) Submitted: September 5, 2002 Decided: September 10, 2002 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jessie Benjamin Kindley, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jessie Benjamin Kindley, Sr., 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 deny Kindley’s motions for discovery and production of documents and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Kindley v. Hicks, No. CA-01-768-2 (E.D. Va. Apr. 30, 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