Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 17 views

    Williams v. Braxton, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Chauncey Williams appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error after reviewing the record. The Fourth Circuit denied Williams' motion for summary disposition and dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Williams v. Braxton, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    17 views2 pages
    Chauncey Williams appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error after reviewing the record. The Fourth Circuit denied Williams' motion for summary disposition and dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-04-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-6117

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Chauncey Williams appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error after reviewing the record. The Fourth Circuit denied Williams' motion for summary disposition and dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    17 views2 pages

    Williams v. Braxton, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Chauncey Williams appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error after reviewing the record. The Fourth Circuit denied Williams' motion for summary disposition and dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 08-6117

    CHAUNCEY A. WILLIAMS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    DANIEL A. BRAXTON, Warden; OFFICER BURTON, Correctional Officer;
    OFFICER WHEELER, Sergeant; TINCHER, Sergeant; PRITT, Lieutenant,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
    Samuel G. Wilson, District
    Judge. (7:07-cv-00292-SGW-MFU)

    Submitted:

    April 24, 2008

    Decided:

    April 29, 2008

    Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit
    Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Chauncey A. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE


    OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Chauncey A. Williams appeals the district courts order
    accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
    relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint.
    the record and find no reversible error.

    We have reviewed

    Accordingly, we affirm

    for the reasons stated by the district court. Williams v. Braxton,


    No. 7:07-cv-00292-SGW-MFU (W.D. Va. Dec. 20, 2007).

    We deny

    Williams motion for summary disposition and 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 -

    You might also like