Filed: Jul. 31, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6685 MARK ULYSSES KNIGHTNOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MR. BARTOS, Shift Supervisor; MR. DAVIS, Senior Officer; CCA, corporation providing services, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-03-260-2) Submitted: July 24, 2003 Decided: July 31, 2003 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Se
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6685 MARK ULYSSES KNIGHTNOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MR. BARTOS, Shift Supervisor; MR. DAVIS, Senior Officer; CCA, corporation providing services, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-03-260-2) Submitted: July 24, 2003 Decided: July 31, 2003 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Sen..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6685 MARK ULYSSES KNIGHTNOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MR. BARTOS, Shift Supervisor; MR. DAVIS, Senior Officer; CCA, corporation providing services, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-03-260-2) Submitted: July 24, 2003 Decided: July 31, 2003 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Ulysses Knightnor, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Mark Ulysses Knightnor 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 Knightnor v. Bartos, No. CA-03-260-2 (E.D. Va. Apr. 21, 2003). 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
