Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Jones v. Angelone, 02-1967 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-1967 Visitors: 10
Filed: Mar. 13, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1967 DOROTHY ANN JONES, Estate of Edward Lee Johnson, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RON ANGELONE, Director; LONNIE M. SANDERS, Superintendent, Augusta Correctional Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-00-850) Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 13, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circ
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1967 DOROTHY ANN JONES, Estate of Edward Lee Johnson, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RON ANGELONE, Director; LONNIE M. SANDERS, Superintendent, Augusta Correctional Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-00-850) Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 13, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dorothy Ann Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Garrett Hill, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Dorothy Ann Jones appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Although the district court noted that Jones failed to file objections to the magistrate judge’s report, the record does not reflect that Jones was notified of her right to file objections or of the consequences for failing to do so. We conclude, however, that the magistrate judge correctly found Jones’ action barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Therefore, to the extent the district court indicated it reviewed the magistrate judge’s recommendation de novo and adopted it, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Jones v. Angelone, No. CA-00-850 (E.D. Va. Aug. 5, 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