Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Cuffee v. Joyner, 07-6201 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-6201 Visitors: 21
Filed: Jun. 28, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6201 ROBERT A. CUFFEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus W. JOYNER, Building Unit Sergeant; D. KINSLEY, Mrs., Law Library Supervisor; MRS. EDMONDS, Kitchen Supervisor; MRS. DELBRIDGE, Mail Room Supervisor; MRS. PRINCE, Mail Room Supervisor; S. BATTS, Associate Warden; S. ZAPP, Mrs., Grievance Coordinator; MRS. WHARTON, Court Officer; MR. HARRIS, Mail Room Postal Assistant Supervisor; MRS. TURNER, Building Unit H-7# Counselor, D
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6201 ROBERT A. CUFFEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus W. JOYNER, Building Unit Sergeant; D. KINSLEY, Mrs., Law Library Supervisor; MRS. EDMONDS, Kitchen Supervisor; MRS. DELBRIDGE, Mail Room Supervisor; MRS. PRINCE, Mail Room Supervisor; S. BATTS, Associate Warden; S. ZAPP, Mrs., Grievance Coordinator; MRS. WHARTON, Court Officer; MR. HARRIS, Mail Room Postal Assistant Supervisor; MRS. TURNER, Building Unit H-7# Counselor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:06-cv-00570-RGD) Submitted: June 21, 2007 Decided: June 28, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert A. Cuffee, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert Cuffee appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Cuffee v. Joyner, No. 2:06-cv-00570-RGD (E.D. Va. Jan. 12, 2007). 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 -
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