Newbill v. Musselman

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit October 24, 1996

Opinion

No. 96-6687

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-96-384-R)

Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 24, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher T. Newbill, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his

42 U.S.C. § 1983

(1994) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Newbill v. Musselman, No. CA-96-384-R (W.D. Va. Apr. 22, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion for oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-

rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.