Filed: Sep. 03, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6772 CLAYTON BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. R. C. MATHENA, Warden; OFFICER MITCHELL; SERGEANT SHRIEVE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:10-cv-00192-sgw-mfu) Submitted: August 26, 2010 Decided: September 3, 2010 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unp
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6772 CLAYTON BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. R. C. MATHENA, Warden; OFFICER MITCHELL; SERGEANT SHRIEVE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:10-cv-00192-sgw-mfu) Submitted: August 26, 2010 Decided: September 3, 2010 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpu..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6772
CLAYTON BROWN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
R. C. MATHENA, Warden; OFFICER MITCHELL; SERGEANT SHRIEVE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (7:10-cv-00192-sgw-mfu)
Submitted: August 26, 2010 Decided: September 3, 2010
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clayton Brown, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Clayton Brown appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Brown v. Mathena, No. 7:10-cv-00192-sgw-mfu (W.D. Va.
May 14, 2010). 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
2