Tuller v. Braxton
This text of Tuller v. Braxton (Tuller v. Braxton) 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UNPUBLISHED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. 04-7612
BRYCE M. TULLER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
D. BRAXTON; J. ARMENTROUT; R. FOWLER; L. HUFFMAN; R. ANGELONE,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
UNNAMED DEFENDANTS,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1297-7)
Submitted: April 20, 2005 Decided: April 28, 2005
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bryce M. Tuller, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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). PER CURIAM:
Bryce M. Tuller 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 for the reasons stated by the district court. See Tuller v.
Braxton, No. CA-02-1297-7 (W.D. Va. filed Sept. 17, 2004; entered
Sept. 22, 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
- 2 -
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Tuller v. Braxton, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tuller-v-braxton-ca4-2005.