Filed: Jul. 30, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6374 STEFFAN J. LUSBY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus L.J. RANDOLPH, Business Manager; RON ANGELONE, Director of Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-00-1926-AM) Submitted: July 17, 2001 Decided: July 30, 2001 Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior C
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6374 STEFFAN J. LUSBY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus L.J. RANDOLPH, Business Manager; RON ANGELONE, Director of Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-00-1926-AM) Submitted: July 17, 2001 Decided: July 30, 2001 Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Ci..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6374 STEFFAN J. LUSBY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus L.J. RANDOLPH, Business Manager; RON ANGELONE, Director of Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-00-1926-AM) Submitted: July 17, 2001 Decided: July 30, 2001 Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steffan J. Lusby, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Steffan J. Lusby appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A(b)(1) (West Supp. 2000). 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 Lusby v. Randolph, No. CA-00-1926-AM (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 19, 2000; entered Feb. 20, 2001). 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