Leach v. Canterbury

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Leach v. Canterbury

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7203

WALTER M. LEACH, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

KENNETH UNDERWOOD, Lieutenant; DON PUGH, Cor- poral; JAMES E. FOX; JERRY CANTERBURY; DEAN BARNES; TIMOTHY LUIKART; MATTHEW GIBSON,

Defendants - Appellees, and

STEVEN CANTERBURY; BETTY EWING,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-422-5)

Submitted: December 14, 2000 Decided: December 21, 2000

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter M. Leach, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Chad Marlo Cardinal, As- sistant Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Walter M. Leach, Jr., appeals the district court’s order deny-

ing relief on his

42 U.S.C.A. § 1983

(West Supp. 2000) complaint.

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no re-

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

district court. Leach v. Canterbury, No. CA-99-422-5 (S.D.W. Va.

Aug. 1, 2000). 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

Reference

Status
Unpublished