Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Drew v. Young, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    11 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Troy D. Drew in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against prison officials. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's opinion. The Court affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its February 24, 2003 opinion. The Court also decided oral argument was not necessary because the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-08-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-6425

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Troy D. Drew in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against prison officials. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's opinion. The Court affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its February 24, 2003 opinion. The Court also decided oral argument was not necessary because the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Drew v. Young, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Troy D. Drew in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against prison officials. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's opinion. The Court affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its February 24, 2003 opinion. The Court also decided oral argument was not necessary because the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately addressed 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 03-6425

    TROY D. DREW,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    S. K. YOUNG, Warden; R. A. YOUNG, Regional
    Director; H. WILKINS, investigator; B. J.
    RAUIZEE, Ombudsman; A. P. HARVEY, Assistant
    Warden,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District
    Judge. (CA-02-542-7)

    Submitted:

    July 1, 2003

    Decided:

    August 6, 2003

    Before WILLIAMS and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Troy D. Drew, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Garrett Hill, OFFICE


    OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Troy D. Drew appeals from the district courts order denying
    relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) action.

    We have reviewed the

    record and the district courts opinion and find no reversible


    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

    district court.
    2003).

    Drew v. Young, No. CA-02-542-7 (W.D. Va. Feb. 24,

    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