Filed: Feb. 26, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7972 WAYNE RUSH MEADOWS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus E. G. FELDMAN, Sheriff; DANNY T. CALL, Investigator; TIMOTHY K. SANNERS, Commonwealth Attorney, Orange County, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-101) Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 26, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHED
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7972 WAYNE RUSH MEADOWS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus E. G. FELDMAN, Sheriff; DANNY T. CALL, Investigator; TIMOTHY K. SANNERS, Commonwealth Attorney, Orange County, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-101) Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 26, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7972 WAYNE RUSH MEADOWS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus E. G. FELDMAN, Sheriff; DANNY T. CALL, Investigator; TIMOTHY K. SANNERS, Commonwealth Attorney, Orange County, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-101) Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 26, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne Rush Meadows, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Wayne Rush Meadows seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Meadows v. Feldman, No. CA-03-101 (W.D. Va. Dec. 16, 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 -
