Case ID: f-appx_585/html/0266-01.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

John DONOHUE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George HINKLE, Regional Administrator; Randall C. Mathena, Warden, ROSP; T. Raiford, Counselor, and current Unit Manager at ROSP; L. Mullins, Institutional Hearings Officer at ROSP; Ingle, C/O at ROSP, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-6905.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 20, 2014.
    Decided: Nov. 25, 2014.
    John Patrick Donohue, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John Donohue appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Donohue v. Hinkle, No. 7:14-cv-00138-GEC-RSB (W.D.Va. May 15, 2014). 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.