Case Name: Marvin L. GRIMM, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Joseph L. Forsyth, Jr.; Venson L. Coward; Donald D. Reardon; Jonathan R. Tuller; Robert L. Taylor; Joseph N. Martin; Carl Ray Chambers; Thomas R. Jefferson; Bryce M. Tuller, Plaintiffs, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appellee, and Virginia Parole Board; James Jenkins, Chairman of the Virginia Parole Board, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-01-19
Citations: 2 F. App'x 251
Docket Number: No. 00-7066
Parties: Marvin L. GRIMM, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Joseph L. Forsyth, Jr.; Venson L. Coward; Donald D. Reardon; Jonathan R. Tuller; Robert L. Taylor; Joseph N. Martin; Carl Ray Chambers; Thomas R. Jefferson; Bryce M. Tuller, Plaintiffs, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appellee, and Virginia Parole Board; James Jenkins, Chairman of the Virginia Parole Board, Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 2
Pages: 251–251

Head Matter:
Marvin L. GRIMM, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Joseph L. Forsyth, Jr.; Venson L. Coward; Donald D. Reardon; Jonathan R. Tuller; Robert L. Taylor; Joseph N. Martin; Carl Ray Chambers; Thomas R. Jefferson; Bryce M. Tuller, Plaintiffs, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appellee, and Virginia Parole Board; James Jenkins, Chairman of the Virginia Parole Board, Defendants.
No. 00-7066.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 14, 2000.
Decided Jan. 19, 2001.
Marvin L. Grimm, pro se.
Matthew P. Dullaghan, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, VA, for appellee.
Before WIDENER, WILKINS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges..

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Marvin L. Grimm appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1988 (West Supp.2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Grimm v. Virginia Dep't of Corrections, No. CA-00-45 (E.D.Va. Apr. 28, 2000). 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.