U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2002

Bedell v. Greensville Correct

Bedell v. Greensville Correct
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided June 7, 2002

Bedell v. Greensville Correct

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6469

CLINTON BEDELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

GREENSVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER; F.J.C.A.; VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JOHN F.

GORCZYK; TERRY MOSHER; SHAUNA ROWELL; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; RON ANGELONE; INTERSTATE COMPACT CONTRACT #0946130; D. A.

GARRAGHTY; C. DAVIS; R. DAVIS; GENE JOHNSON; WARNER; JIM GILMORE; SAMUEL BATES; F. S.

SPENCE; M. MILLARD; NURSE BONEY; VERMONT GOVERNOR; DOCTOR GENERAL; DOCTOR GAY; DOCTOR LEWIS; DOCTOR FIELDING; N. LABRIOLA; B.

CARABELLO; F. ROACH; COMMANDING OFFICER EVERETTE; HOWARD DEAN; VERMONT-VIRGINIA INTERSTATE COMPACT #0946130; FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND TRUST ACCOUNTS PAID BY VERMONT TO VIRGINIA TO HOUSE INMATES AT GREENSVILLE; SECURITY OFFICERS; ISAIAH PECK; MITCHELL; GAMBRELL; EVERETT; GARCIA; LIEUTENANT WALKER; M. L. BOONE, Sergeant; CHISM; JACKSON; WILLIAMS; CLERY; CARPENTER; BROWN; PHILIPS; DELOACH; LAWRENCE; R. CLARK; CARPINO, Caseworker-mental health; CURIEL; B.

BLAKELY; MISS BROOKS, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-01-892-2) Submitted: May 30, 2002 Decided: June 7, 2002

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clinton Bedell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Clinton Bedell appeals the district court order and judgment dismissing his complaint for failing to include an original signature as required by Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Bedell v. Greensville Correctional, No. CA-01-892-2 (E.D. Va. Mar.

12, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conclusions 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.