Case Name: Lord VERSATILE, a/k/a Venson Coward, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E.E. WRIGHT, Jr., Chief Warden, Defendant-Appellee, and Rufus Fleming, Eastern Regional Director; J.K. Vaughan, Inmate Hearing Officer; Tracy S. Ray, Chief Warden; Ronald T. Coker, Department of Corrections Liaison, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-26
Citations: 332 F. App'x 894
Docket Number: No. 09-6505
Parties: Lord VERSATILE, a/k/a Venson Coward, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E.E. WRIGHT, Jr., Chief Warden, Defendant-Appellee, and Rufus Fleming, Eastern Regional Director; J.K. Vaughan, Inmate Hearing Officer; Tracy S. Ray, Chief Warden; Ronald T. Coker, Department of Corrections Liaison, Defendants.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 332
Pages: 894–895

Head Matter:
Lord VERSATILE, a/k/a Venson Coward, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E.E. WRIGHT, Jr., Chief Warden, Defendant-Appellee, and Rufus Fleming, Eastern Regional Director; J.K. Vaughan, Inmate Hearing Officer; Tracy S. Ray, Chief Warden; Ronald T. Coker, Department of Corrections Liaison, Defendants.
No. 09-6505.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 20, 2009.
Decided: Aug. 26, 2009.
Lord Versatile, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Larry Fitzgerald, James R. Morgan, Jr., Robert T. Numbers, II, Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, William Michael Holm, Williams Mullen, McLean, Virginia, James Bennett Kinsel, Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Tysons Corner, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lord Versatile appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Versatile v. Wright, No. 3:05-cv-00768-RLW (E.D.Va. Feb. 23, 2009). 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.