The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
03-7585•David Skundor v. MICHAEL COLEMAN, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex, in his personal
03-7585Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJun 2, 2004
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7585
DAVID SKUNDOR, and the class of similarly
situated persons being all prisoners housed in
the Quilliams I and II Units at the Mount
Olive Correctional Complex,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL COLEMAN, Warden, Mount Olive
Correctional Complex, in his personal and
official capacities; THOMAS MCBRIDE, Warden,
Mount Olive Correctional Complex, in his
official capacity; ROBERT DANIEL, in his
personal capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Charles H. Haden II,
District Judge. (CA-02-205-5)
Submitted: April 30, 2004 Decided: June 2, 2004
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Skundor, Appellant Pro Se. Heather A. Connolly, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, Charleston, West Virginia; Charles Patrick
-- 1 of 3 --
- 2 -
Houdyschell, Jr., WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 2 of 3 --
- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
David Skundor appeals the district court’s orders
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint, and denying his
motion to alter judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court. See Skundor v. McBride, No. CA-02-205-5
(S.D.W. Va. Sept. 9, 2003; Nov. 4, 2003). 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
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.