Filed: Sep. 23, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7013 RALPH DORELL BARR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICER NASH; SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY- ABINGDON FACILITY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:13-cv-00279-JCT-RSB) Submitted: September 13, 2013 Decided: September 23, 2013 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7013 RALPH DORELL BARR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICER NASH; SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY- ABINGDON FACILITY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:13-cv-00279-JCT-RSB) Submitted: September 13, 2013 Decided: September 23, 2013 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7013 RALPH DORELL BARR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICER NASH; SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY- ABINGDON FACILITY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:13-cv-00279-JCT-RSB) Submitted: September 13, 2013 Decided: September 23, 2013 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ralph Dorell Barr, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ralph Dorell Barr appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Barr v. Nash, No. 7:13-cv-00279-JCT- RSB (W.D. Va. June 21, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
