Filed: Dec. 13, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7524 DWAYNE ANTHONY HAIRSTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARTINSVILLE CITY JAIL; STEVE DRAPER, Sheriff, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CV-02-1018-7) Submitted: November 21, 2002 Decided: December 13, 2002 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dw
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7524 DWAYNE ANTHONY HAIRSTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARTINSVILLE CITY JAIL; STEVE DRAPER, Sheriff, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CV-02-1018-7) Submitted: November 21, 2002 Decided: December 13, 2002 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dwa..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7524 DWAYNE ANTHONY HAIRSTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARTINSVILLE CITY JAIL; STEVE DRAPER, Sheriff, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CV-02-1018-7) Submitted: November 21, 2002 Decided: December 13, 2002 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dwayne Anthony Hairston, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Dwayne Anthony Hairston appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Hairston v. Martinsville City Jail, No. CV-02- 1018-7 (W.D. Va. Oct. 3, 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
