Case Name: Curtis PENNINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. TAYLOR, Correctional Officer, POD Officer, Defendant-Appellee, and Mecklenburg Correctional Center; Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-04
Citations: 98 F. App'x 957
Docket Number: No. 04-6443
Parties: Curtis PENNINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. TAYLOR, Correctional Officer, POD Officer, Defendant—Appellee, and Mecklenburg Correctional Center; Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants.
Judges: Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 98
Pages: 957–957

Head Matter:
Curtis PENNINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. TAYLOR, Correctional Officer, POD Officer, Defendant—Appellee, and Mecklenburg Correctional Center; Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants.
No. 04-6443.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 27, 2004.
Decided June 4, 2004.
Curtis Pennington, Appellant pro se. Mark Ralph Davis, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Curtis Pennington 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 on the reasoning of the district court. See Pennington v. Taylor, No. CA-02-604-2 (E.D.Va. Mar. 1, 2004). 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