U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2012

Malcolm Muhammad v. Sergeant Cochrane

Malcolm Muhammad v. Sergeant Cochrane
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided October 4, 2012

Malcolm Muhammad v. Sergeant Cochrane

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6793

MALCOLM MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. SERGEANT COCHRANE, Sergeant at Wallens Ridge State Prison; SERGEANT GREER, Sergeant at Wallens Ridge State Prison; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER CHEEKS, Correctional Officer; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER FUSION, Correctional Officer, Defendants – Appellees, and GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections; BRYANT WATSON, Warden, Wallens Ridge State Prison; A. P. HARVEY, Assistant Warden, Wallens Ridge State Prison; MAJOR COMBS, Major of Security at Wallens Ridge State Prison; LIEUTENANT COLLINS, Lieutenant at Wallens Ridge State Prison; INVESTIGATOR MCBRIDE, Investigator; B.

YOUNG, Sergeant, Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:10-cv-00395-SGW-RSB)

Submitted: September 28, 2012 Decided: October 4, 2012

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Malcolm Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Malcolm Muhammad appeals the district court’s orders: accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment; and entering judgment of $2000 for Muhammad in accordance with a jury verdict in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. We deny the motions for transfer and for a transcript and 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.