Filed: Jun. 02, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6330 CHARLES H. TRAMMELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ALTON BASKERVILLE, Chief Warden; TRACEY RAY, Assistant Warden of Programs; CARL MARROW, Food Operator Manager, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-98-702-AM) Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: June 2, 1999 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHA
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6330 CHARLES H. TRAMMELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ALTON BASKERVILLE, Chief Warden; TRACEY RAY, Assistant Warden of Programs; CARL MARROW, Food Operator Manager, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-98-702-AM) Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: June 2, 1999 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAE..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6330 CHARLES H. TRAMMELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ALTON BASKERVILLE, Chief Warden; TRACEY RAY, Assistant Warden of Programs; CARL MARROW, Food Operator Manager, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-98-702-AM) Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: June 2, 1999 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles H. Trammell, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assis- tant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Charles Trammell appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Trammell v. Baskerville, No. CA-98-702-AM (E.D. Va. Feb. 25, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2