Filed: Aug. 06, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6425 TROY D. DREW, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus S. K. YOUNG, Warden; R. A. YOUNG, Regional Director; H. WILKINS, investigator; B. J. RAUIZEE, Ombudsman; A. P. HARVEY, Assistant Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-542-7) Submitted: July 1, 2003 Decided: August 6, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6425 TROY D. DREW, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus S. K. YOUNG, Warden; R. A. YOUNG, Regional Director; H. WILKINS, investigator; B. J. RAUIZEE, Ombudsman; A. P. HARVEY, Assistant Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-542-7) Submitted: July 1, 2003 Decided: August 6, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6425 TROY D. DREW, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus S. K. YOUNG, Warden; R. A. YOUNG, Regional Director; H. WILKINS, investigator; B. J. RAUIZEE, Ombudsman; A. P. HARVEY, Assistant Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-542-7) Submitted: July 1, 2003 Decided: August 6, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Troy D. Drew, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Garrett Hill, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Troy D. Drew appeals from the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Drew v. Young, No. CA-02-542-7 (W.D. Va. Feb. 24, 2003). 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