Washington v. Fleming
This text of Washington v. Fleming (Washington v. Fleming) 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UNPUBLISHED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. 05-6538
ANTHONY WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
RUFUS FLEMING, Regional Director; J. HALSEY HARRIS, Regional Obudsman; EDDIE L. PEARSON, Chief Warden; DAVID B. EVERETT, Assistant Warden of Operation and Security; JAMILLA F. BURNEY, Assistant Warden of Housing and Programs; RICK E. WHITE, Senior Counselor; MICHAEL SHAWN EDWARDS, Chaplin; RUFUS C. ROBINSON, Unit Manager; L. MURPHY, Grievance Coordinator; SERGEANT PARHAM, Correctional Officer; MR. APPEL, Registered Nurse; LIEUTENANT HAMLETTE; JOHN DOE, IV; OFFICER KELLY; SERGEANT TISCHLER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-02-778-2)
Submitted: August 18, 2005 Decided: August 25, 2005
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Washington, Appellant Pro Se. John David McChesney, RAWLS & NCNELIS, PC, Richmond, Virginia; William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Philip Carlton Hollowell, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Anthony Washington 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
Washington v. Fleming, No. CA-02-778-2 (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 17,
2005 & entered Mar. 21, 2005). We deny Washington’s motion for
appointment of counsel. 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
Washington v. Fleming, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-v-fleming-ca4-2005.