Case Name: Richard A. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry HUFFMAN, Regional Director, in their official and individual capacities; George M. Hinkle, Warden, in their official and individual capacities; Benita L. Hawkes, Operations Officer, in their official and individual capacities; Ruth Brown, Grievance Coordinator, in their official and individual capacities, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-03-04
Citations: 30 F. App'x 181
Docket Number: No. 01-7647
Parties: Richard A. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry HUFFMAN, Regional Director, in their official and individual capacities; George M. Hinkle, Warden, in their official and individual capacities; Benita L. Hawkes, Operations Officer, in their official and individual capacities; Ruth Brown, Grievance Coordinator, in their official and individual capacities, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 30
Pages: 181–182

Head Matter:
Richard A. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry HUFFMAN, Regional Director, in their official and individual capacities; George M. Hinkle, Warden, in their official and individual capacities; Benita L. Hawkes, Operations Officer, in their official and individual capacities; Ruth Brown, Grievance Coordinator, in their official and individual capacities, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-7647.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2002.
Decided March 4, 2002.
Richard A. Miller, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Richard A. Miller, a Maryland inmate, appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp.2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Miller v. Huffman, No. CA-01-1267-AM (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 5, 2001 & entered Sept. 6, 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.