Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Robinson v. Commonwealth of VA, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Bartholomew Robinson v. Commonwealth of Virginia et al. affirming the district court's denial of relief on Robinson's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and district court opinion and found no reversible error, affirming the lower court's ruling based on the reasoning in its March 6, 1996 opinion. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-08-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-6387

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Bartholomew Robinson v. Commonwealth of Virginia et al. affirming the district court's denial of relief on Robinson's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and district court opinion and found no reversible error, affirming the lower court's ruling based on the reasoning in its March 6, 1996 opinion. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Robinson v. Commonwealth of VA, 4th Cir. (1996)

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Bartholomew Robinson v. Commonwealth of Virginia et al. affirming the district court's denial of relief on Robinson's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and district court opinion and found no reversible error, affirming the lower court's ruling based on the reasoning in its March 6, 1996 opinion. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were 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 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 96-6387

    BARTHOLOMEW ROBINSON,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; EXECUTIVE HEAD;
    GEORGE ALLEN, Governor; RONALD ANGELONE,
    Director of Virginia Department of Corrections; R. A. YOUNG, Region Administrator,
    Western District of Virginia Department of
    Corrections; GEORGE DEEDS, Warden of Keen
    Mountain Correctional Center,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.
    (CA-96-212)
    Submitted:

    July 23, 1996

    Decided:

    August 5, 1996

    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Bartholomew Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.
    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. Robinson v. Virginia, No. CA-96-212 (W.D. Va. Mar. 6, 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