Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Kelvin Canada v. Randall Mathena, 14-7175 (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 14-7175 Visitors: 37
Filed: Dec. 23, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7175 KELVIN A. CANADA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RANDALL MATHENA, Warden; LIEUTENANT ANTHONY MULLINS; LIEUTENANT STILL; SERGEANT J. KISER; LIEUTENANT STEVE FRANKLIN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, District Judge. (7:13-cv-00322-JPJ-PMS) Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 23, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKE
More
                             UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 14-7175


KELVIN A. CANADA,

                Plaintiff - Appellant,

          v.

RANDALL   MATHENA,    Warden;  LIEUTENANT      ANTHONY  MULLINS;
LIEUTENANT STILL;     SERGEANT J. KISER;       LIEUTENANT STEVE
FRANKLIN,

                Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.   James P. Jones, District
Judge. (7:13-cv-00322-JPJ-PMS)


Submitted:   December 18, 2014             Decided:   December 23, 2014


Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Kelvin A. Canada, Appellant Pro Se.  Richard            Carson Vorhis,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond,             Virginia, for
Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

              Kelvin A. Canada appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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.                    Canada

v. Mathena, No. 7:13-cv-00322-JPJ-PMS (W.D. Va. July 29, 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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer