Case ID: f-appx_49/html/0451-01.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

Tyrone SHELTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald ANGELONE; GENE M. JOHNSON, Deputy Director of the VDOC; Gary Bass, Chief of Operations for the VDOC; Richard A. Young, Western Regional Director for the VDOC; George E. Deeds, Warden for Red Onion State Prison; Yvonne Elswick, Assistant Warden of Programs, ROSP; Operations Officer for ROSP; J. Bentley, Treatment Program Supervisor at ROSP; R. Rowlette, Major, Chief of Security at ROSP; L. Fleming, Captain of Security of ROSP; D. Taylor, Captain of Security at Wallens Ridge State Prison; R. Pientka, Sergeant; M. Mullins; Doctor Nwauche, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 02-6705.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 24, 2002.
    Decided Oct. 30, 2002.
    Tyrone Shelton, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Garrett Hill, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia; David Ernest Boelzner, Heather Marie Kofron, Wright, Robinson, Osthimer & Tatum, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Tyrone Shelton appeals the magistrate judge’s and district court’s orders denying relief in part on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s and district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge and district court. See Shelton v. Angelone, No. CA-99-750-7 (W.D.Va. Sept. 8, 2000; Mar. 22, 2001; filed Mar. 27, 2002 and entered Mar. 28, 2002). In addition, we note that the district court’s opinion on Shelton’s ADA claim is consistent with our recent decision in Wessel v. Glendening, 306 F.3d 203 (4th Cir.2002) (No. 00-6634). 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. 
      
       The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).