Case Name: Chauncey A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J.E. PARKS, Director, Offender Management Services; M.L. Taylor, Chief of Operations, Central Region; D.B. Everett, Chief of Operations, Eastern Region.; G. Robinson, Manager, Ombudsman Services Unit; H.J. Ponton, Jr., Warden, (N.C.C.); R. Woodson, Eastern Region Ombudsman; M.M. Vargo, Warden (SSX II), Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-08-26
Citations: 582 F. App'x 218
Docket Number: No. 14-6601
Parties: Chauncey A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J.E. PARKS, Director, Offender Management Services; M.L. Taylor, Chief of Operations, Central Region; D.B. Everett, Chief of Operations, Eastern Region.; G. Robinson, Manager, Ombudsman Services Unit; H.J. Ponton, Jr., Warden, (N.C.C.); R. Woodson, Eastern Region Ombudsman; M.M. Vargo, Warden (SSX II), Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 582
Pages: 218–219

Head Matter:
Chauncey A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J.E. PARKS, Director, Offender Management Services; M.L. Taylor, Chief of Operations, Central Region; D.B. Everett, Chief of Operations, Eastern Region.; G. Robinson, Manager, Ombudsman Services Unit; H.J. Ponton, Jr., Warden, (N.C.C.); R. Woodson, Eastern Region Ombudsman; M.M. Vargo, Warden (SSX II), Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-6601.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 21, 2014.
Decided: Aug. 26, 2014.
Chauncey A. Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Chauncéy A. Williams appeals the district court's orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012), and denying his motion to amend the judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Williams v. Parks, No. 1:13-cv-00823TSE-IDD (E.D.Va. Mar. 18, 2014 & Apr. 3, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.