Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Washington v. Fleming, 05-6538 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-6538 Visitors: 15
Filed: Aug. 25, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6538 ANTHONY WASHINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RUFUS FLEMING, Regional Director; J. HALSEY HARRIS, Regional Obudsman; EDDIE L. PEARSON, Chief Warden; DAVID B. EVERETT, Assistant Warden of Operation and Security; JAMILLA F. BURNEY, Assistant Warden of Housing and Programs; RICK E. WHITE, Senior Counselor; MICHAEL SHAWN EDWARDS, Chaplin; RUFUS C. ROBINSON, Unit Manager; L. MURPHY, Grievance Coordinator; SERGEANT PARHA
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6538 ANTHONY WASHINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RUFUS FLEMING, Regional Director; J. HALSEY HARRIS, Regional Obudsman; EDDIE L. PEARSON, Chief Warden; DAVID B. EVERETT, Assistant Warden of Operation and Security; JAMILLA F. BURNEY, Assistant Warden of Housing and Programs; RICK E. WHITE, Senior Counselor; MICHAEL SHAWN EDWARDS, Chaplin; RUFUS C. ROBINSON, Unit Manager; L. MURPHY, Grievance Coordinator; SERGEANT PARHAM, Correctional Officer; MR. APPEL, Registered Nurse; LIEUTENANT HAMLETTE; JOHN DOE, IV; OFFICER KELLY; SERGEANT TISCHLER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-02-778-2) Submitted: August 18, 2005 Decided: August 25, 2005 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Washington, Appellant Pro Se. John David McChesney, RAWLS & NCNELIS, PC, Richmond, Virginia; William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Philip Carlton Hollowell, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Anthony Washington 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 Washington v. Fleming, No. CA-02-778-2 (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 17, 2005 & entered Mar. 21, 2005). We deny Washington’s motion for 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 - 3 -
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