Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Baker v. Mullins, 05-7466 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-7466 Visitors: 20
Filed: May 02, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7466 HENRY ANTHONY BAKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LARRY MULLINS, IHO; LIEUTENANT FOWLER; S. SHORTRIDGE, Operating Officer; T. WOOD, Sergeant; A. KILBOURNE, Sergeant; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER COMER; J. BUTTS, Correctional Officer; J. BOYD, Correctional Officer; R. FLEMING, Correctional Officer; M. MULLINS, Correctional Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7466 HENRY ANTHONY BAKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LARRY MULLINS, IHO; LIEUTENANT FOWLER; S. SHORTRIDGE, Operating Officer; T. WOOD, Sergeant; A. KILBOURNE, Sergeant; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER COMER; J. BUTTS, Correctional Officer; J. BOYD, Correctional Officer; R. FLEMING, Correctional Officer; M. MULLINS, 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-05-466-7) Submitted: April 17, 2006 Decided: May 2, 2006 Before LUTTIG and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Anthony Baker, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Henry Anthony Baker appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Baker v. Mullins, No. CA-05-466-7 (W.D. Va. Aug. 26, 2005). We deny Baker’s motion for appointment of counsel, and we find no error in the district court’s refusal to do so. 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 -
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