Fred Wilson v. C/O Robert


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--terminating Motion for other relief [998433651-2]; granting Motion to withdraw [998436605-2]; denying Motion for other relief [998442085-2] Originating case number: 7:08-cv-00638-gec-mfu Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998489967] [10-6949]

Download PDF
Fred Wilson v. C/O Robert Doc. 0 Case: 10-6949 Document: 13 Date Filed: 12/22/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6949 FRED LEWIS WILSON, Plaintiff Appellant, v. C/O ROBERTS; C/O TABOR; SGT. ELY, Defendants Appellees, and B. COLLINS, SGT.; M. WILLIAMS, C/O; H. BISHOP, C/O; J. DURHAM, C/O; SGT. KING; LT. KILBOURNE; C/O HYLTON; C/O BOYD; TED THOMPSON, DR.; M. STANFORD, RN; MELISSA SPEARS, LPN; PATSY GARNETTE ZEPPA, RN; PATRICIA HILLMAN, RN, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:08-cv-00638-gec-mfu) Submitted: December 6, 2010 Decided: December 22, 2010 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Case: 10-6949 Document: 13 Date Filed: 12/22/2010 Page: 2 Fred Lewis Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Case: 10-6949 Document: 13 Date Filed: 12/22/2010 Page: 3 PER CURIAM: Fred Lewis Wilson appeals the district court's judgment entered after a jury found in favor of Appellees and denied relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record, conclude that the issues Wilson raises do not present substantial questions, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we decline to authorize preparation of the trial transcript at government expense and affirm the judgment of the district September court. 2010 We motion grant for Wilson's production motion of to withdraw and his deny We documents Wilson's October 2010 motion for production of documents. 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

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?