Shelton v. Wilson

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedAugust 5, 2004
Docket04-6484
StatusUnpublished

This text of Shelton v. Wilson (Shelton v. Wilson) 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.

Bluebook
Shelton v. Wilson, (4th Cir. 2004).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6484

TYRONE SHELTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CHARLES WILSON, Institutional Physician; MAJOR YATES, Chief of Security at Wallens Ridge State Prison; A. P. HARVEY, Assistant Warden of Operations at WRSP; S. K. YOUNG, Warden at Wallens Ridge State Prison,

Respondents - Appellees,

and

PAGE TRUE, Warden of Sussex I State Prison; HERMAN M. SMITH, Health Services Director; JOSEPH DRAPER, Institutional Optometrist; FRED SCHILLING, Health Services Director,

Respondents.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-627-AM)

Submitted: July 12, 2004 Decided: August 5, 2004

Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone Shelton, Appellant Pro Se. John David McChesney, RAWLS & MCNELIS, P.C., Richmond, Virginia; William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

Tyrone Shelton appeals the district court’s orders

granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 (2000) complaint, and denying his motion for

reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Shelton v. Wilson, No. CA-02-627-AM (E.D. Va.

filed Jan. 21, 2004 & entered Jan. 23, 2004; Mar. 1, 2004). 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

- 3 -

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Shelton v. Wilson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shelton-v-wilson-ca4-2004.