Case Name: Floyd D. ASHWOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, and George L. Reid; Jerry Harris; Luis Lugo; Steven J. Richmond; John Farmer; Robert Hudson; Tyrone Wilkins; Douglas S. Pearson; Maurice Jett; William Keith Smith; Kenyatta Williams; T. Kendrick; J. Powell; K. Kenney, Plaintiffs, v. Stan BARRY, Sheriff; Jane Corcoran, Supervisor, Lt. Classification Unit; Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-04-30
Citations: 33 F. App'x 137
Docket Number: No. 02-6308
Parties: Floyd D. ASHWOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, and George L. Reid; Jerry Harris; Luis Lugo; Steven J. Richmond; John Farmer; Robert Hudson; Tyrone Wilkins; Douglas S. Pearson; Maurice Jett; William Keith Smith; Kenyatta Williams; T. Kendrick; J. Powell; K. Kenney, Plaintiffs, v. Stan BARRY, Sheriff; Jane Corcoran, Supervisor, Lt. Classification Unit; Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 33
Pages: 137–138

Head Matter:
Floyd D. ASHWOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, and George L. Reid; Jerry Harris; Luis Lugo; Steven J. Richmond; John Farmer; Robert Hudson; Tyrone Wilkins; Douglas S. Pearson; Maurice Jett; William Keith Smith; Kenyatta Williams; T. Kendrick; J. Powell; K. Kenney, Plaintiffs, v. Stan BARRY, Sheriff; Jane Corcoran, Supervisor, Lt. Classification Unit; Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-6308.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 18, 2002.
Decided April 30, 2002.
Floyd D. Ashwood, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Floyd D. Ashwood appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Ashwood v. Barry, No. CA-02-59-2 (E.D.Va. Feb. 6, 2002). 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.