Case Name: Elbert SMITH, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn CROSS, Warden, L.V.C.C.; Chief Sullivan, Chief of Security, L.V.C.C.; Sergeant Yates, Correction Officer, L.V.C.C.; Sergeant Reed, Correction Officer, L.V.C.C., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-09-06
Citations: 45 F. App'x 278
Docket Number: No. 02-6896
Parties: Elbert SMITH, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn CROSS, Warden, L.V.C.C.; Chief Sullivan, Chief of Security, L.V.C.C.; Sergeant Yates, Correction Officer, L.V.C.C.; Sergeant Reed, Correction Officer, L.V.C.C., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 45
Pages: 278–279

Head Matter:
Elbert SMITH, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn CROSS, Warden, L.V.C.C.; Chief Sullivan, Chief of Security, L.V.C.C.; Sergeant Yates, Correction Officer, L.V.C.C.; Sergeant Reed, Correction Officer, L.V.C.C., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-6896.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 29, 2002.
Decided Sept. 6, 2002.
Elbert Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Elbert Smith, Jr., appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2002) 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. Smith v. Cross, No. CA-02-272-2 (E.D.Va. May 13, 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.