U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2000

Curtis v. Saunders

Curtis v. Saunders
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided February 15, 2000

Curtis v. Saunders

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7409

JAMES CURTIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, and

JAMES VENABLE; DONALD POWELL; PAUL HICKMAN; JOHN ALDRIDGE; MARK A. ADKINS; BOBBY WIDENER; TERRELL C. WADE, Plaintiffs, versus

L. M. SAUNDERS; V. GRANT, MRS.; DAY, Warden; L. M. HUFFMAN, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-538-7)

Submitted: February 10, 2000 Decided: February 15, 2000

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Curtis, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attor- ney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: James Curtis appeals the district court’s order granting De- fendants’ motion for summary judgment and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) 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. See Curtis v. Saunders, No. CA-98-538-7 (W.D. Va. Sept. 15, 1999). 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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.