Case ID: f-appx_193/html/0218-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Omoro RAGLAND, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. H.R. POWELL; W.W. Pixley; W.F. Seal; W. Thorne; R.M. Hedgepeth; Lieutenant Barnes; Lieutenant Smith; Correctional Officer Boone; Correctional Officer Pryor; Ms. Tann; Ronald J. Angelone; Gene Johnson; R. Fleming; J. Lee; D. Hammond; R.A. Young; L.W. Jarvis; F. Lockhart; K.A. Polinsky; V.J. Bandy; Gerald K. Washington; B. Booker; Lieutenant Edmonds; Ms. Harrison; L.W. Huffman; J. Boone, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 06-6575.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 25, 2006.
    Decided: Aug. 2, 2006.
    Omoro Ragland, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Joel Christopher Hoppe, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Omoro Ragland appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action challenging, among other things, the validity and enforcement of the prison’s grooming policy. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ragland v. Angelone, 420 F.Supp.2d 507 (W.D.Va.2006). 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.