Mangum v. Huffman ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 95-7542
    BEVERLY RICARDO MANGUM,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    L. W. HUFFMAN; J. B. TAYLOR; D. C. STEWART; A.
    L. CRAWFORD; SERGEANT BERRY; H. BOOTH-BROWN;
    C/O CARTER, JR.; G. DEDRICK; LYNN COX; G. P.
    HACTON; LIEUTENANT JONES; M. W. MURPHY; P. N.
    KNIGHT, Captain; S. W. HOLLOR; T. S. MILLER;
    F. S. ROBINSON; T. STEWART; C/O PROCTOR; L.
    SHEFFER; ASSISTANT WARDEN JARVIS; S. FARRISH;
    C/O KEY; C/O HAROLD; SERGEANT HENRY; L.
    PAINTER; CAPTAIN SPITLER; R.R. HOLLOWAY; C/O
    EUTSLER; P. JOHNSON; C/O WALTERS; R. DAWSON;
    J. LEE; L. M. SAUNDERS; P. MASSIE; C/O SPEARS;
    R. L. FRADY; J. H. LYLE, Lieutenant; C/O
    FLETCHER; C/O GARRETT; SERGEANT SLIVER;
    SERGEANT TAYLOR; D. SWISHER; R. BOYER,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    SERGEANT HENNY; D. N. FOLEY; C/O ALLEN;
    SERGEANT HARRIS; K. BAILEY; UNKNOWN MEMBERS OF
    THE APPEALS UNIT,
    Defendants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
    trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.
    (CA-94-403-R)
    Submitted:    April 15, 1996             Decided:   April 23, 1996
    Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Beverly Ricardo Mangum, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 from the district court's orders denying
    relief on his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     (1988) complaint and Fed. R. Civ. P.
    59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. We have reviewed the
    record and the district court's opinion and find no abuse of dis-
    cretion and no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the
    reasoning of the district court. Mangum v. Huffman, No. CA-94-403-R
    (W.D. Va. Sept. 5 & 15, 1995). 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 deci-
    sional process.
    AFFIRMED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 95-7542

Filed Date: 4/23/1996

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021