Filed: Mar. 16, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6086 SAMUEL WRIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KATHY HAWK, Director, United States Bureau of Prisons; JOHN DOE, Superintendent, Northern Neck Regional Jail, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-00-232) Submitted: March 8, 2001 Decided: March 16, 2001 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Af
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6086 SAMUEL WRIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KATHY HAWK, Director, United States Bureau of Prisons; JOHN DOE, Superintendent, Northern Neck Regional Jail, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-00-232) Submitted: March 8, 2001 Decided: March 16, 2001 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Aff..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6086 SAMUEL WRIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KATHY HAWK, Director, United States Bureau of Prisons; JOHN DOE, Superintendent, Northern Neck Regional Jail, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-00-232) Submitted: March 8, 2001 Decided: March 16, 2001 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Samuel Wright appeals the district court’s order denying re- lief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) 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 Wright v. Hawk, No. CA-00-232 (E.D. Va. Dec. 20, 2000). 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
