Bane v. Angelone

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 19, 1999
• Docket: 98-6997
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6997

ROBERT ALLEN BANE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Depart- ment of Corrections; L. M. SAUNDERS, Warden; J. LEE, Assistant Warden; S. F. TAYLOR, Assis- tant Warden; B. TOLLEY, Acting Assistant War- den; L. R. DAY, Major; OFFICER HALL; OFFICER J. SCOTT; OFFICER ARNOLD; OFFICER FRESHOUR; OFFICER TYLER; OFFICER GARRETT; LIEUTENANT REDMAN,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

OFFICER THORNTON; A. D. ROBINSON,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-96-687-R)

Submitted: February 26, 1999 Decided: March 19, 1999

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Allen Bane, Appellant Pro Se. Martha Murphey Parrish, As- sistant Attorney General, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).

2 PER CURIAM:

Robert Allen Bane appeals the district court’s orders denying

relief on his complaint filed under the Americans with Disabilities

Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101-12213 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998), and

42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record

and the district court’s opinions accepting the magistrate judge’s

recommendations and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we af-

firm on the reasoning of the district court. See Bane v. Angelone,

No. CA-96-687-R (W.D. Va. Jan. 9; May 20, 1998).* We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-

ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* The orders from which Bane appeals were signed on January 6, 1998, and May 19, 1998, and entered on the district court’s docket on January 9, and May 20, 1998 respectively. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and 79(a), it is the date of entry we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).