Newton v. Phillips

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 8, 2005
• Docket: 04-7801
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7801

TIDES JERRY NEWTON, III,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SERGEANT PHILLIPS; COUNSELOR JESSE; COUNSELOR DUFFY; LIEUTENANT FOWLER; MAJOR FLEMING; L. FLEMING; SERGEANT O’QUINN; C/O COUNTS; LIEUTENANT HONAKER; CARL YATES; RICK WIANDT, a/k/a Wiandt; WARDEN BRAXTON; MR. HUFFMAN; CENTRAL CLASSIFICATION BOARD; R. A. YOUNG, Regional Director; LIEUTENANT ROBINSON; LARRY DELP, a/k/a Delp; KENNETH MOORE, Special Agent; RON ANGELONE; GENE JOHNSON; J. WILLIAM,

Defendants - Appellees, and

SERGEANT AUSTIN; THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL; GRIEVANCE OFFICER; HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISTS; S. CAUDILL, a/k/a Mr. Caudill; JAMES M. LESLIE, Special Agent; JOHN 1-3 DOES; J. ELY; B. EDMONDS; P. SAUL,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1230)

Submitted: February 24, 2005 Decided: March 8, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tides Jerry Newton, III, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Tides Jerry Newton, III, appeals the district court’s

order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See

Newton v. Phillips, No. CA-02-1230 (W.D. Va. Oct. 1, 2004). We

deny Newton’s motion for appointment of counsel and 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

- 3 -