Filed: Jun. 04, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6443 CURTIS PENNINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus L. TAYLOR, Correctional Officer, POD Officer, Defendant - Appellee, and MECKLENBURG CORRECTIONAL CENTER; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-02-604-2) Submitted: May 27, 2004 Decided: June 4, 2004 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6443 CURTIS PENNINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus L. TAYLOR, Correctional Officer, POD Officer, Defendant - Appellee, and MECKLENBURG CORRECTIONAL CENTER; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-02-604-2) Submitted: May 27, 2004 Decided: June 4, 2004 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and K..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6443 CURTIS PENNINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus L. TAYLOR, Correctional Officer, POD Officer, Defendant - Appellee, and MECKLENBURG CORRECTIONAL CENTER; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-02-604-2) Submitted: May 27, 2004 Decided: June 4, 2004 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis Pennington, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Curtis Pennington appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Pennington v. Taylor, No. CA-02-604-2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 1, 2004). 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 -
