Filed: Nov. 24, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7015 WILLIAM HENRY ROACH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROBERT E. MAXEY, in his individual and official capacity; CHRISTOPHER WEBB; MR. COOK; NURSE MOON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-831-7) Submitted: October 29, 2004 Decided: November 24, 2004 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judg
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7015 WILLIAM HENRY ROACH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROBERT E. MAXEY, in his individual and official capacity; CHRISTOPHER WEBB; MR. COOK; NURSE MOON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-831-7) Submitted: October 29, 2004 Decided: November 24, 2004 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judge..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7015 WILLIAM HENRY ROACH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROBERT E. MAXEY, in his individual and official capacity; CHRISTOPHER WEBB; MR. COOK; NURSE MOON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-831-7) Submitted: October 29, 2004 Decided: November 24, 2004 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Henry Roach, Appellant Pro Se. Carlene Booth Johnson, PERRY & WINDELS, Dillwyn, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William Henry Roach appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Roach v. Maxey, No. CA-02-831-7 (W.D. Va. filed June 1, 2004; entered June 2, 2004). 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 -
