Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Renfrow v. Morris, 01-7593 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7593 Visitors: 14
Filed: Jan. 29, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7593 RUDOLPH RENFROW, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EDWARD C. MORRIS, Deputy Director Virginia Department of Corrections; EDDIE PEARSON, Chief Warden, Sussex II State Prison; JAMILLA F. BURNEY, Assistant Warden Sussex II State Prison; EARLY T. TURNER, Unit Manager, Build- ing #1 Sussex II State Prison; WANDA ROLLINS, Operations Officer Sussex II State Prison; JOHN THOMAS, Deputy Director; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7593 RUDOLPH RENFROW, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EDWARD C. MORRIS, Deputy Director Virginia Department of Corrections; EDDIE PEARSON, Chief Warden, Sussex II State Prison; JAMILLA F. BURNEY, Assistant Warden Sussex II State Prison; EARLY T. TURNER, Unit Manager, Build- ing #1 Sussex II State Prison; WANDA ROLLINS, Operations Officer Sussex II State Prison; JOHN THOMAS, Deputy Director; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; HULON L. WILLIS, JR., Contract Monitor, District of Columbia Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-9-3) Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: January 29, 2002 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rudolph Renfrow, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Rudolph Renfrow, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (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 Renfrow v. Morris, No. CA-01-9-3 (E.D. Va. Aug. 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer