Filed: Jul. 02, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6494 ARTHUR WILLIAMS, Mr., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ULEP, Doctor; ROGERS P. W., Mr., Regional Director; EVERETT, Mr., 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-00730-JRS) Submitted: June 26, 2008 Decided: July 2, 2008 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6494 ARTHUR WILLIAMS, Mr., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ULEP, Doctor; ROGERS P. W., Mr., Regional Director; EVERETT, Mr., 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-00730-JRS) Submitted: June 26, 2008 Decided: July 2, 2008 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6494 ARTHUR WILLIAMS, Mr., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ULEP, Doctor; ROGERS P. W., Mr., Regional Director; EVERETT, Mr., 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-00730-JRS) Submitted: June 26, 2008 Decided: July 2, 2008 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Joseph McNelis, III, Elizabeth Martin Muldowney, RAWLS & MCNELIS, PC, Richmond, Virginia; Mark R. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Arthur Williams 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. Williams v. Ulep, No. 3:06-cv-00730-JRS (E.D. Va. Mar. 17, 2008). 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 -