Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Matherly v. Baskfield, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views3 pages
    Wilford Matherly filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials alleging violations of his civil rights. The district court denied relief and Matherly appealed. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found that the district court correctly denied Matherly's complaint. The Fourth Circuit also declined to hold oral arguments as the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-11-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-7265

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Wilford Matherly filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials alleging violations of his civil rights. The district court denied relief and Matherly appealed. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found that the district court correctly denied Matherly's complaint. The Fourth Circuit also declined to hold oral arguments as the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    3 views3 pages

    Matherly v. Baskfield, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Wilford Matherly filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials alleging violations of his civil rights. The district court denied relief and Matherly appealed. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found that the district court correctly denied Matherly's complaint. The Fourth Circuit also declined to hold oral arguments as the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 96-7265

    WILFORD ANDREW MATHERLY, JR.,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    J. C. BASKFIELD, C/O; C. E. DUNMOODIE, Captain; D. R. GUILLORY, Warden; R. ANGELONE,
    Director; E. MURRAY; W. ROGERS, Regional
    Administrator; L. JARVIS, Assistant Warden; L.
    KELLY, Assistant Warden; C. LEWIS, Major; V.
    WASHINGTON, Treatment Supervisor; D. ANDERSON,
    Operations Officer; B. CARABALLA, Counselor;
    M. GROSS, Food Services Supervisor; MONISE
    SIMONS, Food Service Supervisor; VERNON MAYS,
    Food Service Supervisor; CARL HUNT, Food
    Service Supervisor; LEON REED, Food Service
    Supervisor; NURSE SMITH, Medical Personnel;
    NURSE HELLER, Medical Personnel; NURSE JONES,
    Medical Personnel; NURSE WEBB; P. MARLOWE,
    Nurse; NURSE DERDIVANIS; NURSE JOHNSON; S.
    HURLEY, Nurse; D. GATELY, Nurse; G. LOGIN,
    Nurse,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District
    Judge. (CA-94-189-2)
    Submitted:

    November 7, 1996

    Decided:

    November 20, 1996

    Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Wilford Andrew Matherly, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
    Pamela Anne
    Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Sandra
    Morris Holleran, MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, L.L.P., Richmond,
    Virginia; Malcolm Pollard McConnell, III, Anisa Patrice Kelley,
    COTTER, FISCELLA & MCCONNELL, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on
    his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record
    and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.
    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.
    Matherly v. Baskfield, No. CA-94-189-2 (E.D. Va. Aug. 5, 1996). 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