Filed: Dec. 23, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7551 D’ANDRE LOVERTURE JACKSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR TATRO; DOCTOR THOMPSON; H. HAMILTON, RDA; NURSE HARBER, LPN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-928-7) Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 23, 2002 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpub
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7551 D’ANDRE LOVERTURE JACKSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR TATRO; DOCTOR THOMPSON; H. HAMILTON, RDA; NURSE HARBER, LPN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-928-7) Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 23, 2002 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpubl..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7551 D’ANDRE LOVERTURE JACKSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR TATRO; DOCTOR THOMPSON; H. HAMILTON, RDA; NURSE HARBER, LPN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-928-7) Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 23, 2002 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. D’Andre Loverture Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: D’Andre Loverture Jackson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Jackson’s motion to amend his informal brief and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Jackson v. Tatro, No. CA-02-928-7 (W.D. Va. Sept. 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
