Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Windsor v. Amrien, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying relief to Terry Milton Windsor in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against medical and corrections officials. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for denying relief. Additionally, the appeals court found Windsor's complaints about the timeliness of the defendants' filings to be unfounded. The appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling without hearing oral arguments.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-01-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-7423

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying relief to Terry Milton Windsor in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against medical and corrections officials. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for denying relief. Additionally, the appeals court found Windsor's complaints about the timeliness of the defendants' filings to be unfounded. The appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling without hearing oral arguments.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    6 views2 pages

    Windsor v. Amrien, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying relief to Terry Milton Windsor in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against medical and corrections officials. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for denying relief. Additionally, the appeals court found Windsor's complaints about the timeliness of the defendants' filings to be unfounded. The appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling without hearing oral arguments.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 02-7423

    TERRY MILTON WINDSOR,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    DONALD J. AMRIEN, Medical Doctor; KAREN CRIM,
    Sergeant, Accomack County Jail; GRETTA SAMPLE,
    Nurse, Accomack County Jail,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    ROBERT CROCKETT, Sheriff, Accomack County
    Jail; MIKE DABRASKI, Correctional Officer,
    Accomack County Jail; DEPUTY GOGA, Accomack
    County
    Jail;
    ACCOMACK
    COUNTY
    JAIL,
    Medical/Officer,
    Defendants.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
    (CA-01-799)

    Submitted:

    January 16, 2003

    Decided:

    January 23, 2003

    Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Terry Milton Windsor, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Hartnett, AYRES &
    HARTNETT, Accomac, Virginia; Jeff Wayne Rosen, Lisa Ehrich, PENDER
    & COWARD, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Terry

    Milton

    Windsor

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

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

    order

    We have

    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we

    affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

    See Windsor v.

    Amrien, No. CA-01-799 (E.D. Va. Aug. 30, 2002).

    In addition, we

    find that Windsors complaints regarding the timeliness of the


    filing of Defendants pleadings are unfounded.

    We dispense with

    oral

    contentions

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    legal

    are

    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument


    would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like