Filed: Sep. 09, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6966 VINCENT D. YUILLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus A. D. ROBINSON, Warden, Nottoway Correctional Center; E. S. WILLIS, Chairman c/o ICA, Nottoway Correctional Center; R. L. PARMENTER, Counselor, Nottoway Correctional Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-02-324-2) Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decid
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6966 VINCENT D. YUILLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus A. D. ROBINSON, Warden, Nottoway Correctional Center; E. S. WILLIS, Chairman c/o ICA, Nottoway Correctional Center; R. L. PARMENTER, Counselor, Nottoway Correctional Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-02-324-2) Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decide..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6966 VINCENT D. YUILLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus A. D. ROBINSON, Warden, Nottoway Correctional Center; E. S. WILLIS, Chairman c/o ICA, Nottoway Correctional Center; R. L. PARMENTER, Counselor, Nottoway Correctional Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-02-324-2) Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 9, 2002 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vincent D. Yuille, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Vincent D. Yuille 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. See Yuille v. Robinson, No. CA-02-324-2 (E.D. Va. June 7, 2002). 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
