Charles Richard RILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ron ANGELONE, Director; Gene Johnson, Deputy Director; William P. Rogers, Regional Administrator; Gary Bass, Records Manager, Court & Legal Section VDOC; M. Wayne Huggins, Superintendent, Virginia Department of State Police; Records Manager, of the Virginia Department of State Police Central Criminal Records Exchange; Virginia Secretary of Public Safety; Dave Robinson, Warden; E.B. Walker, Assistant Warden of Operations; Tammy Estep, former Assistant Warden of Programs; Marilyn Hill, former Operations Officer; Ms. Collette, Records Manager; Nancy Matthews, Ombudsman; Sergeant Frame, Correctional Officer; Sergeant Marshall; Sergeant Watkins, Correctional Officer; Sergeant Walton, Correctional Officer; Sergeant Coles, Correctional Officer; P. Gray, Personal Property Control Officer; Captain Dillard, Correctional Officer; Mr. Nelson, Disciplinary Hearings Officer; Counselor D. Hatcher; Carl Manis, Assistant Warden of Programs; Eliza Willis, Treatment Program Supervisor; Harvey Ellis Eisenberg, Assistant U.S. Attorney; Unknown Employees of the Virginia Department of Corrections; c/o Allen, Correctional Officer; Correctional Officer Jackson, Personal Property Control Officer; c/o Foster, Correctional Officer; c/o Simms, Correctional Officer; Correctional Officer Johnson, Correctional Officer; c/o Booker, Correctional Officer; c/o McMillion, Correctional Officer; c/o Oaks, Correctional Officer; Lieutenant Ferguson, Correctional Officer; Lieutenant Wade, Correctional Officer; Major Vaughan, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit2002-01-02No. No. 01-7303

23 F. App'x 160

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

PER CURIAM.

Charles Richard Riley appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Riley v. Angelone, No. CA-01-36 AM (E.D.Va. July 10, 2001). 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.