Case Name: Carnell HUNNICUTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; R.A. Young; S.K. Young; A.P. Harvey; R.B. Phillips; Chaplain Mitchell, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-08-17
Citations: 17 F. App'x 94
Docket Number: No. 01-6852
Parties: Carnell HUNNICUTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; R.A. Young; S.K. Young; A.P. Harvey; R.B. Phillips; Chaplain Mitchell, Defendants-Appel-lees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 17
Pages: 94–95

Head Matter:
Carnell HUNNICUTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; R.A. Young; S.K. Young; A.P. Harvey; R.B. Phillips; Chaplain Mitchell, Defendants-Appel-lees.
No. 01-6852.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 9, 2001.
Decided Aug. 17, 2001.
Carnell Hunnicutt, pro se.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Camell Hunnieutt appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2000) complaint for failure to comply with the conditional filing order. 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. Hun-nicutt v. Virginia Dep't of Corrections, No. CA-01-254-7 (W.D.Va. Apr. 30, 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.
AFFIRMED.