Filed: Apr. 28, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7612 BRYCE M. TULLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus D. BRAXTON; J. ARMENTROUT; R. FOWLER; L. HUFFMAN; R. ANGELONE, Defendants - Appellees, and UNNAMED DEFENDANTS, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1297-7) Submitted: April 20, 2005 Decided: April 28, 2005 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7612 BRYCE M. TULLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus D. BRAXTON; J. ARMENTROUT; R. FOWLER; L. HUFFMAN; R. ANGELONE, Defendants - Appellees, and UNNAMED DEFENDANTS, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1297-7) Submitted: April 20, 2005 Decided: April 28, 2005 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7612 BRYCE M. TULLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus D. BRAXTON; J. ARMENTROUT; R. FOWLER; L. HUFFMAN; R. ANGELONE, Defendants - Appellees, and UNNAMED DEFENDANTS, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1297-7) Submitted: April 20, 2005 Decided: April 28, 2005 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bryce M. Tuller, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Bryce M. Tuller 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 Tuller v. Braxton, No. CA-02-1297-7 (W.D. Va. filed Sept. 17, 2004; entered Sept. 22, 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 -
