Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Henderson v. Commonwealth of VA, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views3 pages
    Terrance Henderson filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the Commonwealth of Virginia and various corrections officials and medical staff alleging violations of his civil rights. The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia denied Henderson relief. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, as the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-04-07 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-7506

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Terrance Henderson filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the Commonwealth of Virginia and various corrections officials and medical staff alleging violations of his civil rights. The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia denied Henderson relief. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, as the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    3 views3 pages

    Henderson v. Commonwealth of VA, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Terrance Henderson filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the Commonwealth of Virginia and various corrections officials and medical staff alleging violations of his civil rights. The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia denied Henderson relief. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, as the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 07-7506

    TERRANCE HENDERSON,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.

    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; S. POWERS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER RAMEY;


    G. BAILEY; J. CRABTREE; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WELCH; B. HUBBARD;
    SERGEANT OQUINN; SERGEANT DEEL; DOCTOR TATRO; LIEUTENANT ROSE;
    TRACEY S. RAY; J. RASNICK; B. COX; A. BARTEE; C.P.S. KISER;
    CAPTAIN TAYLOR; K. CHRIS; L. MULLINS; T. MCCOY; J. DEEL; L.
    YATES; DOCTOR OHAI; NURSE SUTHERLAND; OFFICER GENTRY; OFFICER
    STANLEY; K. MCCOY, Captain; J. MULLINS, Correctional Officer;
    FRED SCHILLING, Health Administrator,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge.
    (7:06-cv-408-GEC-MFU)

    Submitted:

    March 6, 2008

    Decided:

    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    April 7, 2008

    Terrance Henderson, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant


    Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Susan A. Waddell, GUYNN,
    MEMMER & DILLON, P.C., Salem, Virginia, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    - 2 -

    PER CURIAM:
    Terrance Henderson appeals the district courts order
    denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint.
    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

    We have

    Accordingly, we

    affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Henderson
    v. Virginia, No. 7:06-cv-408-GEC-MFU (W.D. Va. Sept. 21, 2007). 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 -

    You might also like