Claybrooks v. Newsome
This text of Claybrooks v. Newsome (Claybrooks v. Newsome) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7097
SALLY E. CLAYBROOKS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JIM NEWSOME, Safety Inspector; MARY CLARKE, Doctor VCCW; BOBBI HENDERSON, Nurse,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-00-1097-AM)
Submitted: September 10, 2001 Decided: September 18, 2001
Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sally E. Claybrooks, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:
Sally E. Claybrooks appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on her 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) 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. Claybrooks v. Newsome, No. CA-00-1097-AM (E.D.
Va. July 21, 2000); see Booth v. Churner, 531 U.S. 956 (2001). 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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Claybrooks v. Newsome, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claybrooks-v-newsome-ca4-2001.