Filed: Jun. 08, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6132 DONALD LEE HINTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WALKER, Recreation Supervisor LVCC; C. TOWNES, Unit Manager, LVCC; MALONE, Sergeant LVCC; MILILANI, Doctor LVCC; C. JONES, Ombudsman LVCC, Defendants – Appellees, and FINCH, Sergeant Lawrenceville Correctional Center (LVCC), Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:15-cv
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6132 DONALD LEE HINTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WALKER, Recreation Supervisor LVCC; C. TOWNES, Unit Manager, LVCC; MALONE, Sergeant LVCC; MILILANI, Doctor LVCC; C. JONES, Ombudsman LVCC, Defendants – Appellees, and FINCH, Sergeant Lawrenceville Correctional Center (LVCC), Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:15-cv-..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6132
DONALD LEE HINTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WALKER, Recreation Supervisor LVCC; C. TOWNES, Unit Manager, LVCC;
MALONE, Sergeant LVCC; MILILANI, Doctor LVCC; C. JONES, Ombudsman
LVCC,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
FINCH, Sergeant Lawrenceville Correctional Center (LVCC),
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:15-cv-00626-JAG-RCY)
Submitted: May 26, 2017 Decided: June 8, 2017
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Donald Lee Hinton, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Donald Lee Hinton appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Hinton v. Walker, No. 3:15-cv-00626-JAG-RCY (E.D. Va. Jan. 18, 2017).
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
3