Aziz v. Central VA Regional Jail

Filing 920060831


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7310 MUHAMMAD A. AZIZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CENTRAL VIRGINIA REGIONAL JAIL, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-04-732-7) Submitted: August 9, 2006 Decided: August 31, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Muhammad A. Aziz, Appellant Pro Se. Stanardsville, Virginia, for Appellee. Helen Eckert Phillips, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Muhammad A. Aziz appeals the district court's order adopting 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 See Aziz v. Central for the reasons stated by the district court.* Virginia Reg'l Jail, No. CA-04-732-7 (W.D. Va. filed Aug. 12, 2005; entered Aug. 15, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials would decisional process. AFFIRMED While Aziz attempted to amend his complaint to name two individual defendants in his objections to the magistrate judge's report, the purported amendment was proffered beyond the time permitted by the magistrate judge for Aziz to amend his complaint. Because the purported amendment was not considered by the district court, this court's affirmance is only as to the dismissal of Aziz's complaint against the Central Virginia Regional Jail. We accordingly have not considered the legal merit, if any, of Aziz's claims against any individuals who may have participated in the incidents that underlie Aziz's complaint. - 2 - *

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?