Filed: Oct. 11, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6951 RICHARD G. DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus C. ALLEN, Housing Unit Manager (ICA) Greens- ville Correctional Center; P. CARTER, Clas- sification & Records Unit Member (C.C.B.); J. RAY, Classification & Records Unit Member (C.C.B.), Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-254-2) Submitted: Octob
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6951 RICHARD G. DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus C. ALLEN, Housing Unit Manager (ICA) Greens- ville Correctional Center; P. CARTER, Clas- sification & Records Unit Member (C.C.B.); J. RAY, Classification & Records Unit Member (C.C.B.), Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-254-2) Submitted: Octobe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6951 RICHARD G. DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus C. ALLEN, Housing Unit Manager (ICA) Greens- ville Correctional Center; P. CARTER, Clas- sification & Records Unit Member (C.C.B.); J. RAY, Classification & Records Unit Member (C.C.B.), Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-254-2) Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 11, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Gregg Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Richard Gregg Davis appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) 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. Davis v. Allen, No. CA-01-254-2 (E.D. Va. May 15, 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
