Case ID: f-appx_6/html/0213-02.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

Frank Linwood ELAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A. PIENATT, Lieutenant, Correctional Officer; M.B. Monroe, Correctional Officer; A. Pierce, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 01-6178.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 22, 2001.
    Decided March 30, 2001.
    Frank Linwood Elam, pro se.
    Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Frank Linwood Elam 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 on the reasoning of the district court. See Elam v. Pienatt, No. CA-00-929-2 (E.D.Va. Jan. 8, 2001). We deny Elam’s motions for appointment of counsel and for an evaluation by an independent handwriting expert at government expense. 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.