Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Hunnicutt v. VA Dept Corrections, 04-6592 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-6592 Visitors: 1
Filed: Dec. 16, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6592 CARNELL HUNNICUTT, Plaintiff - Appellant, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor/Plaintiff, versus VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; R. A. YOUNG; S. K. YOUNG; A. P. HARVEY; T. YATES; R. B. PHILLIPS, Defendants - Appellees, and CHAPLAIN MITCHELL, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-379-7) Submitted:
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6592 CARNELL HUNNICUTT, Plaintiff - Appellant, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor/Plaintiff, versus VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; R. A. YOUNG; S. K. YOUNG; A. P. HARVEY; T. YATES; R. B. PHILLIPS, Defendants - Appellees, and CHAPLAIN MITCHELL, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-379-7) Submitted: June 23, 2004 Decided: December 16, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carnell Hunnicutt, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Susan Foster Barr, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Carnell Hunnicutt appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Hunnicutt v. Virginia Dep’t of Corr., CA-01-379-7 (W.D. Va. Mar. 19, 2004; Apr. 17, 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