Case Name: Samuel A. MIDDLETON; David Lee Sykes; John A. Cole, Petitioners-Appellants, v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS CORPORATION; Joseph Lehman, Secretary; Eldon Vail; James Thatcher; Mark McKinna; Ed Rodenbeck; Randy Tate; Correctional Services Corporation; Dominion Management Corporation, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-03-07
Citations: 30 F. App'x 219
Docket Number: No. 02-6021
Parties: Samuel A. MIDDLETON; David Lee Sykes; John A. Cole, Petitioners-Appellants, v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS CORPORATION; Joseph Lehman, Secretary; Eldon Vail; James Thatcher; Mark McKinna; Ed Rodenbeck; Randy Tate; Correctional Services Corporation; Dominion Management Corporation, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINS, DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 30
Pages: 219–219

Head Matter:
Samuel A. MIDDLETON; David Lee Sykes; John A. Cole, Petitioners-Appellants, v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS CORPORATION; Joseph Lehman, Secretary; Eldon Vail; James Thatcher; Mark McKinna; Ed Rodenbeck; Randy Tate; Correctional Services Corporation; Dominion Management Corporation, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 02-6021.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2002.
Decided March 7, 2002.
Samuel A. Middleton, David Lee Sykes, John A. Cole, Appellants Pro Se.
Before WILKINS, DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellants, who are Washington state inmates, appeal the district court's order dismissing their petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) for improper venue. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Middleton v. Washington State Dep't of Corr. Corp., No. CA-01-867 (E.D.Va. Nov. 20, 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.
DISMISSED.