David Crawley v. George Hinkle
David Crawley v. George Hinkle
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7511
DAVID CRAWLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GEORGE M. HINKLE; GREGORY HOLLOWAY; W. R. HENSLEY; M. B.
STURGILL; S. T. ISBELL, Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District Judge. (7:14-cv-00300-MFU-JCH)
Submitted: March 17, 2016 Decided: March 21, 2016
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Edward Crawley, Appellant Pro Se. John Michael Parsons, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: David Edward Crawley appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
Crawley v. Hinkle, No. 7:14-cv-00300-MFU-JCH (W.D. Va. Aug. 25, 2015). We deny Crawley’s motion for appointment of counsel and we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.