Case Name: Chauncey A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John M. JABE, Deputy Director; Daniel A. Braxton, Warden (A.C.C.); Tracy Lawhorn, Treatment Supervisor (A.C.C.); Thomas Simmons, Chaplain (A.C.C.); Lieutenant Harden, Shift Commander (A.C.C.); Sergeant Tincher (A.C.C.), Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-29
Citations: 339 F. App'x 317
Docket Number: No. 09-6099
Parties: Chauncey A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John M. JABE, Deputy Director; Daniel A. Braxton, Warden (A.C.C.); Tracy Lawhorn, Treatment Supervisor (A.C.C.); Thomas Simmons, Chaplain (A.C.C.); Lieutenant Harden, Shift Commander (A.C.C.); Sergeant Tincher (A.C.C.), Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 339
Pages: 317–317

Head Matter:
Chauncey A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John M. JABE, Deputy Director; Daniel A. Braxton, Warden (A.C.C.); Tracy Lawhorn, Treatment Supervisor (A.C.C.); Thomas Simmons, Chaplain (A.C.C.); Lieutenant Harden, Shift Commander (A.C.C.); Sergeant Tincher (A.C.C.), Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-6099.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 23, 2009.
Decided: July 29, 2009.
Chauncey A. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Mark R. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Chauncey A. Williams appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Williams v. Jabe, No. 7:08-cv-00061-sgw-mfu, 2008 WL 5427766 (W.D.Va. Dec. 31, 2008). 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.