Filed: Jul. 21, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6274 HERBERT L. VAIL, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE; LISA EDWARDS, Warden; LEE SULIVAN, Safety Specialist; VIRGINIA DEPART- MENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-00-45-7) Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 21, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6274 HERBERT L. VAIL, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE; LISA EDWARDS, Warden; LEE SULIVAN, Safety Specialist; VIRGINIA DEPART- MENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-00-45-7) Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 21, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit J..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6274 HERBERT L. VAIL, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE; LISA EDWARDS, Warden; LEE SULIVAN, Safety Specialist; VIRGINIA DEPART- MENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-00-45-7) Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 21, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Herbert L. Vail, III, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Herbert L. Vail, III, appeals the district court’s order deny- ing relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Vail v. Angelone, No. CA-00-45-7 (W.D. Va. Feb. 8, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
