Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 11 views

    Barcus v. Rogers, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Edward Barcus filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against several Virginia Department of Corrections officials which was denied by the district court. Barcus appealed the denial. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's ruling denying relief to Barcus. The appeals court decided the case without oral arguments because 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

    You might also like

    Barcus v. Rogers, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    11 views3 pages
    Edward Barcus filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against several Virginia Department of Corrections officials which was denied by the district court. Barcus appealed the denial. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's ruling denying relief to Barcus. The appeals court decided the case without oral arguments because the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-01-14 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-7652

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Edward Barcus filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against several Virginia Department of Corrections officials which was denied by the district court. Barcus appealed the denial. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's ruling denying relief to Barcus. The appeals court decided the case without oral arguments because 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
    11 views3 pages

    Barcus v. Rogers, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Edward Barcus filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against several Virginia Department of Corrections officials which was denied by the district court. Barcus appealed the denial. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's ruling denying relief to Barcus. The appeals court decided the case without oral arguments because 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 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 04-7652

    EDWARD BARCUS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    W. P. ROGERS, Regional Director of V.D.O.s
    Division of Operations; ALTON BASKERVILLE,
    Warden for Powhatan Correctional Center; K. J.
    BESSETT, Warden for Keen Mountain Correctional
    Center; LARRY COLLINS, Inmate Hearings Officer
    at Powhatan Correctional Center; MS. GALLOWAY,
    Appointed
    Treatment
    Program
    Supervisor;
    LIEUTENANT
    MCCALLAHAN,
    Member
    of
    the
    Institutional Classification Authority; B.
    MORRANNO; MR. HAMMONDS, Assigned Counselor for
    Special Housing Unit,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
    Judge. (CA-04-547-2)

    Submitted:

    December 23, 2004

    Decided:

    January 14, 2005

    Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Edward Barcus, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    - 2 -

    PER CURIAM:
    Edward Barcus appeals the district courts order 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 Barcus v. Rogers, No. CA-

    04-547-2 (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 24, 2004; entered Sept. 27, 2004).
    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

    - 3 -

    You might also like