Case ID: f-appx_10/html/0236-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dan OLIVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. K. FOWLKES, Ombudsman; John Taylor, Warden; Joe Teefey, Institutional Attorney; H. Clark, Operational Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 00-7821.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 31, 2001.
    Decided June 6, 2001.
    Dan Oliver, pro se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, VA; Mark Charles Nanavati, Sinnott, Nuckols & Logan, P.C., Midlothian, VA, for appellees.
    Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Dan Oliver appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. Oliver v. Fowlkes, No. CA-99-1485-AM (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 28, 2000; entered Nov. 29, 2000). With regard to claims Oliver asserts the district court did not address, we find that those claims lack merit. We deny Oliver’s motions for a certificate of appealability, for appointment of counsel, for extraordinary relief, and for emergency relief. 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.