Filed: Oct. 08, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6145 ARTURO CRUZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SERGEANT GREER; LIEUTENANT D. COLLINS; A. P. HARVEY, Assistant Warden; B. WATSON, Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:09-cv-00522-gec-mfu) Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 8, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirm
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6145 ARTURO CRUZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SERGEANT GREER; LIEUTENANT D. COLLINS; A. P. HARVEY, Assistant Warden; B. WATSON, Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:09-cv-00522-gec-mfu) Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 8, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirme..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6145
ARTURO CRUZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SERGEANT GREER; LIEUTENANT D. COLLINS; A. P. HARVEY, Assistant
Warden; B. WATSON, Warden,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (7:09-cv-00522-gec-mfu)
Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 8, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arturo Cruz, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Arturo Cruz appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Cruz v. Greer, No. 7:09-cv-00522-gec-mfu
(W.D. Va. Dec. 30, 2009). 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