Case Name: Theodore SULLIVAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. W. YOUNCE, Former Warden, sued in their individual and official capacities; Pearson, Warden, sued in their individual and official capacities; Harrison, Lt. Invs., sued in their individual and official capacities; Medilia, Sgt., sued in their individual and official capacities; Wendy S. Hobbs, Eastern Regional Administrator, sue in her individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-09-11
Citations: 697 F. App'x 190
Docket Number: No. 17-6340
Parties: Theodore SULLIVAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. W. YOUNCE, Former Warden, sued in their individual and official capacities; Pearson, Warden, sued in their individual and official capacities; Harrison, Lt. Invs., sued in their individual and official capacities; Medilia, Sgt., sued in their individual and offi cial capacities; Wendy S. Hobbs, Eastern Regional Administrator, sue in her individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 697
Pages: 190–191

Head Matter:
Theodore SULLIVAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. W. YOUNCE, Former Warden, sued in their individual and official capacities; Pearson, Warden, sued in their individual and official capacities; Harrison, Lt. Invs., sued in their individual and official capacities; Medilia, Sgt., sued in their individual and offi cial capacities; Wendy S. Hobbs, Eastern Regional Administrator, sue in her individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-6340
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: August 31, 2017
Decided: September 11, 2017
Theodore Sullivan, Appellant Pro Se. Margaret Hoehl O’Shea, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Theodore Sullivan appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sullivan v. Younce, No. 3:15-cv-00010-REP-RCY, 2017 WL 655176 (E.D. Va. Feb. 16, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED