Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Skundor v. Painter, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    37 views2 pages
    David Skundor filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court. Skundor appealed the denial. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The appeals court affirmed the district court's denial of Skundor's complaint for the reasons stated by the district court. The appeals court decided oral arguments were not necessary as the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-12-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-7626

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    David Skundor filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court. Skundor appealed the denial. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The appeals court affirmed the district court's denial of Skundor's complaint for the reasons stated by the district court. The appeals court decided oral arguments were not necessary as the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    37 views2 pages

    Skundor v. Painter, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    David Skundor filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court. Skundor appealed the denial. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The appeals court affirmed the district court's denial of Skundor's complaint for the reasons stated by the district court. The appeals court decided oral arguments were not necessary as the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 02-7626

    DAVID SKUNDOR,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    HOWARD PAINTER; RICK NOTTINGHAM, Captain, QII
    Unit Commander; JAMES RUBENSTEIN, Commissioner
    of the West Virginia Division of Corrections,
    in his official capacity,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Beckley.
    David A. Faber, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-00-463)

    Submitted:

    December 16, 2002

    Decided:

    December 23, 2002

    Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    David Skundor, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Patrick Houdyschell, Jr.,


    WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, Charleston, West Virginia;
    Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST
    VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    David Skundor appeals the district courts order accepting the
    recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42
    U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint.

    We have reviewed the record and

    find no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

    of the district court.

    See Skundor v. Painter, No. CA-00-463

    (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 26, 2002).

    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

    You might also like