Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Via v. Daughtry, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    George Via filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against two correctional officers which was denied by the district court. Via appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and affirmed based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its August 26, 1999 and March 14, 2000 orders denying relief on Via's § 1983 complaint. The Fourth Circuit decided the case without oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-09-15 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-6455

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    George Via filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against two correctional officers which was denied by the district court. Via appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and affirmed based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its August 26, 1999 and March 14, 2000 orders denying relief on Via's § 1983 complaint. The Fourth Circuit decided the case without oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

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

    Via v. Daughtry, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    George Via filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against two correctional officers which was denied by the district court. Via appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and affirmed based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its August 26, 1999 and March 14, 2000 orders denying relief on Via's § 1983 complaint. The Fourth Circuit decided the case without oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    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. 00-6455

    GEORGE VIA,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    D. DAUGHTRY, Correctional Officer; P. HARRISON, Supervising Lieutenant,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    RONALD ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department
    of Corrections; D. A. GARRAGHTY, Warden,
    Greensville Correctional Center,
    Defendants.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge.
    (CA-99-176-2)

    Submitted:

    September 8, 2000

    Decided:

    September 15, 2000

    Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    George Via, Appellant Pro Se. Rick Randall Linker, 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:
    George Via appeals the district courts orders denying relief
    on his 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint.

    We have

    reviewed the record and the district courts opinions and find no
    reversible error.
    district court.

    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the


    See Via v. Daughtry, No. CA-99-176-2 (E.D. Va.

    Aug. 26, 1999, & Mar. 14, 2000).

    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

    You might also like