Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Anderson v. Smith, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    1) This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Bruce E. Anderson's appeal of the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. 2) The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and district court opinion and found no reversible error. 3) The Court of Appeals affirms the district court's ruling based on the reasoning in the district court opinion. The Court also denies Anderson's motion for appointment of counsel and decides oral arguments are not necessary in this case.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-04-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 95-1062

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Bruce E. Anderson's appeal of the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. 2) The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and district court opinion and found no reversible error. 3) The Court of Appeals affirms the district court's ruling based on the reasoning in the district court opinion. The Court also denies Anderson's motion for appointment of counsel and decides oral arguments are not necessary in this case.

    Copyright:

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

    Anderson v. Smith, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Bruce E. Anderson's appeal of the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. 2) The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and district court opinion and found no reversible error. 3) The Court of Appeals affirms the district court's ruling based on the reasoning in the district court opinion. The Court also denies Anderson's motion for appointment of counsel and decides oral arguments are not necessary in this case.

    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. 95-1062

    BRUCE E. ANDERSON,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    DAVID L. SMITH; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; DR. CEI; DR. KAPIL; EDWARD CAREY,
    Doctor; DR. AMMONETTE; E. C. MORRIS; DOCTOR
    WALKER, Bland Correctional Center,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District
    Judge; Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge. (CA-93-582-R)
    Submitted:

    April 15, 1996

    Decided:

    April 22, 1996

    Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Bruce E. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.
    Mary Christine Maggard,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia;
    Peter Duane Vieth, WOOTEN & HART, P.C., Roanoke, 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 and find no reversible
    error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
    court. Anderson v. Smith, No. CA-93-582-R (W.D. Va. Dec. 8, 1994).
    We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and 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