Filed: Nov. 08, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6494 JEROME ANTHONY HOWARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MR. SMITH, Physician/WRSP; S. K. YOUNG, Warden/WRSP, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-144-7) Submitted: August 29, 2005 Decided: November 8, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6494 JEROME ANTHONY HOWARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MR. SMITH, Physician/WRSP; S. K. YOUNG, Warden/WRSP, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-144-7) Submitted: August 29, 2005 Decided: November 8, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6494 JEROME ANTHONY HOWARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MR. SMITH, Physician/WRSP; S. K. YOUNG, Warden/WRSP, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-144-7) Submitted: August 29, 2005 Decided: November 8, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome Anthony Howard, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Edward Frye, PENN STUART & ESKRIDGE, Bristol, Tennessee; Mark Ralph Davis, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Jerome Anthony Howard 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 Howard v. Smith, No. CA-03-144-7 (W.D. Va. filed Mar. 23, 2005 & entered Mar. 24, 2005). We further deny Howard’s motion for the appointment of counsel. 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 -