Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3 views

    Kelvin Canada v. Randall Mathena, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Kelvin Canada on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its July 29, 2014 opinion. The Court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the materials submitted.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Kelvin Canada v. Randall Mathena, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Kelvin Canada on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its July 29, 2014 opinion. The Court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the materials submitted.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-12-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-7175

    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 Kelvin Canada on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its July 29, 2014 opinion. The Court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the materials submitted.

    Copyright:

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

    Kelvin Canada v. Randall Mathena, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Kelvin Canada on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its July 29, 2014 opinion. The Court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the materials submitted.

    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. 14-7175

    KELVIN A. CANADA,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    RANDALL
    MATHENA,
    LIEUTENANT STILL;
    FRANKLIN,

    Warden;
    LIEUTENANT
    SERGEANT J. KISER;

    ANTHONY
    MULLINS;
    LIEUTENANT STEVE

    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
    James P. Jones, District
    Judge. (7:13-cv-00322-JPJ-PMS)

    Submitted:

    December 18, 2014

    Decided:

    December 23, 2014

    Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Kelvin A. Canada, Appellant Pro Se.


    Richard
    Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond,
    Appellees.

    Carson Vorhis,
    Virginia, for

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Kelvin A. Canada appeals the district courts order
    accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
    relief

    on

    his

    42

    U.S.C.

    1983

    (2012)

    complaint.

    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

    We

    have

    Accordingly,

    we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

    Canada

    v. Mathena, No. 7:13-cv-00322-JPJ-PMS (W.D. Va. July 29, 2014).


    We

    dispense

    contentions

    with
    are

    oral

    argument

    adequately

    because

    presented

    in

    the

    facts

    and

    the

    materials

    legal
    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like