Filed: Jun. 21, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6256 SYLVESTER A. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WARDEN CROSS; GEORGE M. HINKLE, Warden; DAVID ROBINSON, Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:06-cv-00170-JRS) Submitted: June 15, 2007 Decided: June 21, 2007 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6256 SYLVESTER A. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WARDEN CROSS; GEORGE M. HINKLE, Warden; DAVID ROBINSON, Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:06-cv-00170-JRS) Submitted: June 15, 2007 Decided: June 21, 2007 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished p..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6256 SYLVESTER A. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WARDEN CROSS; GEORGE M. HINKLE, Warden; DAVID ROBINSON, Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:06-cv-00170-JRS) Submitted: June 15, 2007 Decided: June 21, 2007 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sylvester A. Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sylvester A. Richardson appeals the district court’s order 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. Richardson v. Cross, No. 3:06-cv-00170-JRS (E.D. Va. Feb. 8, 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 -
