Filed: Feb. 16, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7668 THURMAN RUDOLPH GOODMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus A. ELLSWORTH, Shift Sergeant/CEO; A. JONES, Floor Deputy; A. HILLS, Medical CEO, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-579) Submitted: February 9, 2005 Decided: February 16, 2005 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirme
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7668 THURMAN RUDOLPH GOODMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus A. ELLSWORTH, Shift Sergeant/CEO; A. JONES, Floor Deputy; A. HILLS, Medical CEO, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-579) Submitted: February 9, 2005 Decided: February 16, 2005 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7668 THURMAN RUDOLPH GOODMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus A. ELLSWORTH, Shift Sergeant/CEO; A. JONES, Floor Deputy; A. HILLS, Medical CEO, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-579) Submitted: February 9, 2005 Decided: February 16, 2005 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thurman Rudolph Goodman, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Thurman Rudolph Goodman appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Goodman v. Ellsworth, No. CA-04-579 (E.D. Va. Oct. 6, 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 -
