Case Name: Earl SAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. STEELE, Corrections Officer; L. Ricks, Corrections Officer, 6-2 Shift; Darling, Corrections Officer; B. Mohead, Inmate Hearings Officer A, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-08-08
Citations: 71 F. App'x 234
Docket Number: No. 02-7336
Parties: Earl SAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. STEELE, Corrections Officer; L. Ricks, Corrections Officer, 6-2 Shift; Darling, Corrections Officer; B. Mohead, Inmate Hearings Officer A, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 71
Pages: 234–235

Head Matter:
Earl SAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. STEELE, Corrections Officer; L. Ricks, Corrections Officer, 6-2 Shift; Darling, Corrections Officer; B. Mohead, Inmate Hearings Officer A, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-7336.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 19, 2003.
Decided Aug. 8, 2003.
Earl Sand, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Earl Sand 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 for the reasons stated by the district court. See Sand v. Steele, 218 F.Supp.2d 788 (E.D.Va. 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.