Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Richards v. Saunders, 03-7774 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-7774 Visitors: 35
Filed: Jan. 28, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7774 MARK E. RICHARDS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LARRY W. SAUNDERS, Warden; ANTHONY PARKER; KIMBERLY ORDILE, Operations Officer; JANE MENEFEE, Mailroom Officer; FOUR UNKNOWN POLICE OFFICERS, Coffeewood Correctional Center; FOUR UNKNOWN POLICE OFFICERS, The Virginia Department of Corrections; RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; BARRY MEADOR, Coffeewood Correctional Center, Defendants - Appel
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7774 MARK E. RICHARDS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LARRY W. SAUNDERS, Warden; ANTHONY PARKER; KIMBERLY ORDILE, Operations Officer; JANE MENEFEE, Mailroom Officer; FOUR UNKNOWN POLICE OFFICERS, Coffeewood Correctional Center; FOUR UNKNOWN POLICE OFFICERS, The Virginia Department of Corrections; RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; BARRY MEADOR, Coffeewood Correctional Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-805-7) Submitted: January 15, 2004 Decided: January 28, 2004 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark E. Richards, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Mark E. Richards appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Defendants and dismissing his civil rights complaint challenging the conditions of confinement. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Richards v. Saunders, No. CA-01-805-7 (W.D. Va. Oct. 2, 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 - 3 -
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