Case ID: f-appx_61/html/0914-02.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

Doyle TUNNELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard HEDGEPETH, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 03-6454.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 24, 2003.
    Decided May 5, 2003.
    Doyle Tunnell, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Doyle Tunnell appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Tunnell v. Hedgepeth, No. CA-03-182-AM (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 24, 2003 & entered Feb. 27, 2003). We deny Tunnell’s motion to enlarge the record and 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.