Case Name: Dewey Keith VENABLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Gene Johnson, V.D.O.C. Regional Director; Page True, Warden; B. Trent, Assistant Warden; B. Cabell, Assistant Warden; Villars, Counselor; Mixcell, Counsel; Lipes, C/O; L. Riddick, C/O; Crenshaw, C/O; Riddick, Sgt. (Currently a Lieutenant), Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-28
Citations: 235 F. App'x 79
Docket Number: No. 07-6315
Parties: Dewey Keith VENABLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Gene Johnson, V.D.O.C. Regional Director; Page True, Warden; B. Trent, Assistant Warden; B. Cabell, Assistant Warden; Villars, Counselor; Mixcell, Counsel; Lipes, C/O; L. Riddick, C/O; Crenshaw, C/O; Riddick, Sgt. (Currently a Lieutenant), Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 79–79

Head Matter:
Dewey Keith VENABLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Gene Johnson, V.D.O.C. Regional Director; Page True, Warden; B. Trent, Assistant Warden; B. Cabell, Assistant Warden; Villars, Counselor; Mixcell, Counsel; Lipes, C/O; L. Riddick, C/O; Crenshaw, C/O; Riddick, Sgt. (Currently a Lieutenant), Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-6315.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 13, 2007.
Decided: Aug. 28, 2007.
Dewey Keith Venable, Appellant Pro Se. Band Enga Tewolde, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Dewey Keith Venable appeals the district court's order denying relief on 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. Venable v. Dep't of Corr., No. 3:05-cv-00821-JRS (E.D.Va. Feb. 7, 2007). 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.