Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Johnson v. Clarke-Fauquier, 06-7709 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 06-7709 Visitors: 151
Filed: Jan. 24, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7709 RONALD CLIFFORD JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KIM MCBRIDE; LEON DUJOUN; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ALGER; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER DUSING; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER JONES, Defendants - Appellees, and CLARKE-FAUQUIER-FREDERICK-WINCHESTER REGIONAL ADULT DETENTION CENTER; RONALD WERDEBAUGH; FRED D. HILDEBRAND; LARRY T. OMPS; NANCY RHODES OMPS, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7709 RONALD CLIFFORD JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KIM MCBRIDE; LEON DUJOUN; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ALGER; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER DUSING; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER JONES, Defendants - Appellees, and CLARKE-FAUQUIER-FREDERICK-WINCHESTER REGIONAL ADULT DETENTION CENTER; RONALD WERDEBAUGH; FRED D. HILDEBRAND; LARRY T. OMPS; NANCY RHODES OMPS, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:04-cv-00050-gec) Submitted: January 18, 2007 Decided: January 24, 2007 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGROY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Clifford Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Rosalie Pemberton Fessier, TIMBERLAKE, SMITH, THOMAS & MOSES, PC, Staunton, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Ronald Clifford Johnson appeals the district court’s order entering judgment on the jury verdict and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Johnson v. Clarke-Fauquier, No. 7:04-cv-00050-gec (W.D. Va. Sept. 27, 2006). We further deny Johnson’s motion for the preparation of trial transcripts at government expense. 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