Filed: Nov. 25, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6905 JOHN DONOHUE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GEORGE HINKLE, Regional Administrator; RANDALL C. MATHENA, Warden, ROSP; T. RAIFORD, Counselor, and current Unit Manager at ROSP; L. MULLINS, Institutional Hearings Officer at ROSP; INGLE, C/O at ROSP, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:14-cv-00138-GEC-RSB)
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6905 JOHN DONOHUE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GEORGE HINKLE, Regional Administrator; RANDALL C. MATHENA, Warden, ROSP; T. RAIFORD, Counselor, and current Unit Manager at ROSP; L. MULLINS, Institutional Hearings Officer at ROSP; INGLE, C/O at ROSP, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:14-cv-00138-GEC-RSB) ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6905
JOHN DONOHUE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GEORGE HINKLE, Regional Administrator; RANDALL C. MATHENA,
Warden, ROSP; T. RAIFORD, Counselor, and current Unit
Manager at ROSP; L. MULLINS, Institutional Hearings Officer
at ROSP; INGLE, C/O at ROSP,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (7:14-cv-00138-GEC-RSB)
Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: November 25, 2014
Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Patrick Donohue, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Donohue appeals the district court’s orders
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Donohue v. Hinkle, No. 7:14-cv-00138-GEC-RSB (W.D. Va.
May 15, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
2