Filed: Mar. 04, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7647 RICHARD A. MILLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LARRY HUFFMAN, Regional Director, in their official and individual capacities; GEORGE M. HINKLE, Warden, in their official and individ- ual capacities; BENITA L. HAWKES, Operations Officer, in their official and individual capacities; RUTH BROWN, Grievance Coordinator, in their official and individual capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States Dist
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7647 RICHARD A. MILLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LARRY HUFFMAN, Regional Director, in their official and individual capacities; GEORGE M. HINKLE, Warden, in their official and individ- ual capacities; BENITA L. HAWKES, Operations Officer, in their official and individual capacities; RUTH BROWN, Grievance Coordinator, in their official and individual capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States Distr..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7647
RICHARD A. MILLER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
LARRY HUFFMAN, Regional Director, in their
official and individual capacities; GEORGE M.
HINKLE, Warden, in their official and individ-
ual capacities; BENITA L. HAWKES, Operations
Officer, in their official and individual
capacities; RUTH BROWN, Grievance Coordinator,
in their official and individual capacities,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District
Judge. (CA-01-1267-AM)
Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 4, 2002
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard A. Miller, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Richard A. Miller, a Maryland inmate, appeals the district
court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.
2001) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 2001). We
have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find
that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal
on the reasoning of the district court. See Miller v. Huffman, No.
CA-01-1267-AM (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 5, 2001 & entered Sept. 6,
2001). 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.
DISMISSED
2