Case Name: Rudolph RENFROW, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward C. MORRIS, Deputy Director Virginia Department of Corrections; Eddie Pearson, Chief Warden, Sussex II State Prison; Jamilla F. Burney, Assistant Warden Sussex II State Prison; Early T. Turner, Unit Manager, Building # 1 Sussex II State Prison; Wanda Rollins, Operations Officer Sussex II State Prison; John Thomas, Deputy Director; District of Columbia Department of Corrections; Hulon L. Willis, Jr., Contract Monitor, District of Columbia Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-01-29
Citations: 26 F. App'x 286
Docket Number: No. 01-7593
Parties: Rudolph RENFROW, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward C. MORRIS, Deputy Director Virginia Department of Corrections; Eddie Pearson, Chief Warden, Sussex II State Prison; Jamilla F. Burney, Assistant Warden Sussex II State Prison; Early T. Turner, Unit Manager, Building # 1 Sussex II State Prison; Wanda Rollins, Operations Officer Sussex II State Prison; John Thomas, Deputy Director; District of Columbia Department of Corrections; Hulon L. Willis, Jr., Contract Monitor, District of Columbia Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 26
Pages: 286–287

Head Matter:
Rudolph RENFROW, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward C. MORRIS, Deputy Director Virginia Department of Corrections; Eddie Pearson, Chief Warden, Sussex II State Prison; Jamilla F. Burney, Assistant Warden Sussex II State Prison; Early T. Turner, Unit Manager, Building # 1 Sussex II State Prison; Wanda Rollins, Operations Officer Sussex II State Prison; John Thomas, Deputy Director; District of Columbia Department of Corrections; Hulon L. Willis, Jr., Contract Monitor, District of Columbia Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-7593.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 17, 2002.
Decided Jan. 29, 2002.
Rudolph Renfrow, Pro Se.
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Rudolph Renfrow, a Virginia 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.2000). 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. See Renfrow v. Morris, No. CA-01-9-3 (E.D.Va. Aug. 15, 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.