Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Walter Booker, Jr. v. M. E. Engelke, 16-6428 (2016)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 16-6428 Visitors: 19
Filed: Oct. 12, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6428 WALTER DELANEY BOOKER, JR., Plaintiff – Appellant, v. M. E. ENGELKE, Director of Food Services; N. GREGG, State Dietitian; H. PONTON, Regional Administrator, Western; L. FLEMING, Warden; M. BROYLES, FOMB; Q. REYNOLDS, Unit Manager; J. COMBS, Assistant Warden; BRYANT, Sergeant; CHOW HALL OFFICERS, C and D side; WITT, Correctional Officer; M. ELAM, Regional Administrator, Western, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6428 WALTER DELANEY BOOKER, JR., Plaintiff – Appellant, v. M. E. ENGELKE, Director of Food Services; N. GREGG, State Dietitian; H. PONTON, Regional Administrator, Western; L. FLEMING, Warden; M. BROYLES, FOMB; Q. REYNOLDS, Unit Manager; J. COMBS, Assistant Warden; BRYANT, Sergeant; CHOW HALL OFFICERS, C and D side; WITT, Correctional Officer; M. ELAM, Regional Administrator, Western, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:16-cv-00084-JLK-RSB) Submitted: September 22, 2016 Decided: October 12, 2016 Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter Delaney Booker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Walter Delaney Booker, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the motion for injunctive relief and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Booker v. Engelke, No. 7:16-cv-00084-JLK-RSB (W.D. Va. Mar. 2, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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