Filed: Aug. 17, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6852 CARNELL HUNNICUTT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; R. A. YOUNG; S. K. YOUNG; A. P. HARVEY; R. B. PHILLIPS; CHAPLAIN MITCHELL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-254-7) Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 17, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6852 CARNELL HUNNICUTT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; R. A. YOUNG; S. K. YOUNG; A. P. HARVEY; R. B. PHILLIPS; CHAPLAIN MITCHELL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-254-7) Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 17, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6852 CARNELL HUNNICUTT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; R. A. YOUNG; S. K. YOUNG; A. P. HARVEY; R. B. PHILLIPS; CHAPLAIN MITCHELL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-254-7) Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 17, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carnell Hunnicutt, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Carnell Hunnicutt appeals the district court’s order dismiss- ing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint for failure to comply with the conditional filing order. 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. Hunnicutt v. Virginia Dep’t of Corrections, No. CA-01-254-7 (W.D. Va. Apr. 30, 2001). 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
