Filed: Jun. 09, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6007 TIMOTHY LEE COLES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAGE TRUE, Chief Warden, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-05-218-3) Submitted: May 31, 2006 Decided: June 9, 2006 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy Lee Coles, Appellant Pro Se. U
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6007 TIMOTHY LEE COLES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAGE TRUE, Chief Warden, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-05-218-3) Submitted: May 31, 2006 Decided: June 9, 2006 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy Lee Coles, Appellant Pro Se. Un..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6007 TIMOTHY LEE COLES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAGE TRUE, Chief Warden, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-05-218-3) Submitted: May 31, 2006 Decided: June 9, 2006 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy Lee Coles, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Timothy Lee Coles appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Coles v. True, No. CA-05-218-3 (E.D. Va. filed Dec. 13, 2005 & entered Dec. 14, 2005). 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 -
