Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

McGhee v. Stout, 05-6498 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-6498 Visitors: 13
Filed: Dec. 02, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6498 WILLIAM MCGHEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STOUT, Correctional Officer; WYNN WILLIAMS; ANDERSON, Correctional Officer; FERGUSON, Correctional Officer; JOHN DOE, I; JOHN DOE, II; JOHN DOE, III; D. TAYLOR, Correctional Officer; MR. HENSLEY, Hearing Officer; STANLEY YOUNG, Warden; MOSCO WYNN, Correctional Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6498 WILLIAM MCGHEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STOUT, Correctional Officer; WYNN WILLIAMS; ANDERSON, Correctional Officer; FERGUSON, Correctional Officer; JOHN DOE, I; JOHN DOE, II; JOHN DOE, III; D. TAYLOR, Correctional Officer; MR. HENSLEY, Hearing Officer; STANLEY YOUNG, Warden; MOSCO WYNN, Correctional Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-426-7-JLK) Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 2, 2005 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William McGhee, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William McGhee appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000) for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See McGhee v. Stout, No. CA-03-426-7-JLK (W.D. Va. Jan. 13, 2005). 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. DISMISSED - 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