Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Perry v. Morrone, 04-2461 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-2461 Visitors: 2
Filed: Mar. 14, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2461 JOHNNY MICHAEL PERRY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BARB MORRONE; JUANITA STATEN; RICHARD PERRY; RIC MORRONE; MABEL SMITH; WAYNE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; CITY OF KENOVA, WEST VIRGINIA; JIM PERRY; DAVID PERRY; DOROTHY PERRY; MILDRED MITCHELL-BATEMAN HOSPITAL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Ju
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2461 JOHNNY MICHAEL PERRY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BARB MORRONE; JUANITA STATEN; RICHARD PERRY; RIC MORRONE; MABEL SMITH; WAYNE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; CITY OF KENOVA, WEST VIRGINIA; JIM PERRY; DAVID PERRY; DOROTHY PERRY; MILDRED MITCHELL-BATEMAN HOSPITAL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (CA-04-792; CA-04-793; CA-04-794; CA-04-795; CA-04-796; CA-04-797; CA-04-798; CA-04-799; CA-04-810; CA-04-1080; CA-04-1111) Submitted: March 10, 2005 Decided: March 14, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnny Michael Perry, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Johnny Michael Perry appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his civil actions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Perry v. Morrone, Nos. CA-04-792; Ca-04-793; CA-04-794; CA-04-795; CA-04-796; CA-04-797; CA-04-798; CA-04-799; CA-04-810; CA-04-1080; CA-04-1111 (S.D.W. Va. filed Nov. 3, 2004; entered Nov. 4, 2004 and Nov. 5, 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 -
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