Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07260/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07260-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7260

THOMAS A. CRUMP,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MARK C. CHRISTIE, in his personal capacity as

Commissioner, State Corporation Commission;

THEODORE V. MORRISON, JR., in his personal

capacity as Commissioner, State Corporation

Commission; JUDITH WILLIAMS JAGDMANN, in her

personal capacity as Commissioner, State

Corporation Commission; LARRY E. DURBIN, in

his personal capacity as Assistant

Commissioner, Customer Service, Department of

Taxation; MICHAEL G. FOJTIK, in his personal

capacity as Senior Auditor, Department of

Taxation, Tobacco Unit,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief

District Judge. (3:07-cv-00244-JRS)

Submitted: December 20, 2007 Decided: December 28, 2007

Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 07-7260 Doc: 27 Filed: 12/28/2007 Pg: 1 of 3
- 2 -

Thomas A. Crump, Appellant Pro Se. A. Ann Berkebile, Philip Reed

DeHass, STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,

Virginia; Flora Townes Hezel, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7260 Doc: 27 Filed: 12/28/2007 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Thomas A. Crump appeals the district court’s order

dismissing 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. Crump v. Christie,

No. 3:07-cv-00244-JRS (E.D. Va. Aug. 7, 2007). We deny Crump’s

motion to recuse judges of this court that smoke from this case.

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

Appeal: 07-7260 Doc: 27 Filed: 12/28/2007 Pg: 3 of 3