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

Leach v. Canterbury

Leach v. Canterbury
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided December 21, 2000

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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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