Case ID: f-appx_155/html/0095-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jaime ACEVEDO, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. M. WARNER; G. Johnson; L.W. Huffman; F. Schilling; D.A. Braxton; R. Fleming; J. Armentrout; M. Younce; S. Harrison; J. Robinson; Sergeant S. Mullins; R. Rose; Hornaker; J.A. Fannin; K. Mccoy; C.E. Yates; Sergeant J.B. O’Quinn; D. Tate; D.D. Moore; Sergeant D. Damron; B. Fleming; L. Fleming; S. Long; Corporal G. Counts; J. Bentley; S. Hopkins; M. Kennedy; Couch; Corporal R. Edwards; J. Taylor; N. Brannan; D. Barton; S. Turner; S. Bouch; Paul Williams, Doctor; Greene; D. Lester; V. Phipps; D. Yates; L. Kilgore; T. Brook; P. Mullins; H. Bolling; M.D. Roberts; G. Meade; R. Moorefield; Branham; Deel; D. Mcknight; B. Rose; Reed; L. Yates; J. Oakes; Needham; Captain L. Fleming; D. Fleming; Lieutenant Fowler; J. Kiser; Captain K. Chris; Roby Edwards; James Bentley; Richard Turner; Todd Needham, Defendants—Appellees.
    
      No. 05-6871.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 31, 2005.
    Decided: Nov. 21, 2005.
    Jaime Acevedo, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Mark Edward Frye, Penn, Stuart & Eskridge, Bristol, Tennessee, for Appellees.
    Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Jaime Acevedo appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and denying his motion filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Acevedo v. Warner, No. CA-03-526-7-Jct-mfu (WD.Va. filed Mar. 29, 2005 & entered Mar. 30, 2005; filed Apr. 20, 2005 & entered Apr. 21, 2005; filed June 1, 2005 & entered June 2, 2005). 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