Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • X v. Bratten, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of relief to Johnathan Lee X in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's ruling based on its reasoning and dispensed with oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-02-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 95-7826

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of relief to Johnathan Lee X in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's ruling based on its reasoning and dispensed with oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

    X v. Bratten, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of relief to Johnathan Lee X in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's ruling based on its reasoning and dispensed with oral argument.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 95-7826

    JOHNATHAN LEE X,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    IRENE BRATTEN; TONI V. BAIR; JOHN TAYLOR;
    EDWARD MURRAY; C. D. LARSEN; DAVID A.
    WILLIAMS; DAVID SMITH; JOE KILLEEN; THOMAS
    BULLOCK; OSCAR GULMATICO; FRED W. GREENE;
    CHARLES THOMPSON; BETTY COLEMAN; FAYE NEWTON;
    CHRISTOPHER WATKINS; WAYNE SHEFFIELD; TONYA
    STOVALL; JOANNE TOYSTER; O. V. JONES; S.
    BATTON; MISS HATCHER; MRS. DOUGHERTY; LUCILLE
    EVANS; MISS BOWER; W. J. OLIVER; R. SHAW; H.
    CRENSHAW,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District
    Judge. (CA-89-70-N)
    Submitted:

    February 7, 1996

    Decided:

    February 28, 1996

    Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Johnathan Lee X, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Harkness Herring, Jr.,


    Assistant Attorney General, Alexander Leonard Taylor, Jr., OFFICE
    OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Edward
    Meade Macon, MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, L.L.P., Richmond,
    Virginia, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the
    record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate
    judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
    we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. X v. Bratten, No.
    CA-89-70-N (E.D. Va. Oct. 13, 1995). 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