Filed: Feb. 28, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7386 WALLACE MITCHELL-EL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus YVONNE ELSWICK; GEORGE E. DEEDS; J. ARMEN- TROUT, Assistant Warden Operations; RED ONION STATE PRISON; EDWARD C. MORRIS, Deputy Direc- tor; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-83-7) Submitted: November 1
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7386 WALLACE MITCHELL-EL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus YVONNE ELSWICK; GEORGE E. DEEDS; J. ARMEN- TROUT, Assistant Warden Operations; RED ONION STATE PRISON; EDWARD C. MORRIS, Deputy Direc- tor; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-83-7) Submitted: November 14..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7386 WALLACE MITCHELL-EL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus YVONNE ELSWICK; GEORGE E. DEEDS; J. ARMEN- TROUT, Assistant Warden Operations; RED ONION STATE PRISON; EDWARD C. MORRIS, Deputy Direc- tor; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-83-7) Submitted: November 14, 2000 Decided: February 28, 2001 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wallace Mitchell-El, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Wallace Mitchell-El appeals a district court order denying his motion for leave to file an amended complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm essentially on the reasoning of the district court. See Mitchell-El v. Elswick, No. CA-00-83-7 (W.D. Va. Sept. 5, 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
