Case Name: Sylvester CRUDUP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. K. SUTTON, c/o, Personal Property Officer; M. Buckles, c/o, Personal Property Officer; S. Hughes, Institution Ombudsman; Alton Baskerville, Warden; W.P. Rogers, Regional Director, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-03-05
Citations: 30 F. App'x 188
Docket Number: No. 01-7721
Parties: Sylvester CRUDUP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. K. SUTTON, c/o, Personal Property Officer; M. Buckles, c/o, Personal Property Officer; S. Hughes, Institution Ombudsman; Alton Baskerville, Warden; W.P. Rogers, Regional Director, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 30
Pages: 188–188

Head Matter:
Sylvester CRUDUP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. K. SUTTON, c/o, Personal Property Officer; M. Buckles, c/o, Personal Property Officer; S. Hughes, Institution Ombudsman; Alton Baskerville, Warden; W.P. Rogers, Regional Director, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-7721.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2002.
Decided March 5, 2002.
Sylvester Crudup, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, VA, for Appellees.
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Sylvester Crudup appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Crudup v. Sutton, No. CA-00-363-2 (E.D. Va. May 24, 2000 & Sept. 6, 2001). 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.
Because Crudup fails to challenge in his informal brief the district court's order granting summary judgment to Defendants on the denial of access to courts claim, this issue is not preserved for appeal. 4th Cir. Local R. 34(b).