Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Watts v. Connor, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of James Edmond Watts v. various correctional officers and officials. The district court had granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing Watts' complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's reasoning and ruling. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-08-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-7559

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of James Edmond Watts v. various correctional officers and officials. The district court had granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing Watts' complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's reasoning and ruling. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Watts v. Connor, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of James Edmond Watts v. various correctional officers and officials. The district court had granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing Watts' complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's reasoning and ruling. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues adequately presented 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. 96-7559

    JAMES EDMOND WATTS,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    PATRICIA E. CONNER, Correctional Officer,
    Augusta Correctional Center; L. SAUNDERS,
    Warden; JACK LEE; S. JAMES TAYLOR; MAJOR DAY;
    D. BOYERS, Captain; INVESTIGATOR REYNOLDS;
    LAWRENCE W. DURY, III; L. H. HUFFMAN; SERGEANT
    STARKEY,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
    Judge. (CA-94-586-R)
    Submitted:

    February 11, 1997

    Decided:

    August 19, 1997

    Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James Edmond Watts, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, 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 granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing his complaint
    filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1994). 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. Watts v. Conner, No. CA-94-586-R (W.D. Va. Sept. 24, 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