Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 7 views

    Jenkins v. Gilmore, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of relief to Waymond L. Jenkins on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The court of appeals 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 the reasoning in that court's opinion.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Jenkins v. Gilmore, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of relief to Waymond L. Jenkins on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The court of appeals 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 the reasoning in that court's opinion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-11-10 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-7170

    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 a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of relief to Waymond L. Jenkins on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The court of appeals 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 the reasoning in that court's opinion.

    Copyright:

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

    Jenkins v. Gilmore, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of relief to Waymond L. Jenkins on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The court of appeals 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 the reasoning in that court's opinion.

    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. 99-7170

    WAYMOND L. JENKINS, JR.,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    JAMES S. GILMORE, III, Governor of Virginia;
    JOHN R. ALDERMAN, Chairman, Virginia Parole
    Board,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
    (CA-99-241-3)

    Submitted:

    November 4, 1999

    Decided:

    November 10, 1999

    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Waymond L. Jenkins, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Waymond L. Jenkins appeals the district courts order denying
    relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint.

    We

    have reviewed the record and the district courts opinion accepting
    the magistrate judges recommendation and find no reversible error.
    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See
    Jenkins v. Gilmore, No. CA-99-241-3 (E.D. Va. Aug. 19, 1999).

    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