Case Name: Derrymore CAMPBELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE; Gene Johnson; Duncan Mills; Armstrong; John Doe; Rufus Fleming; H.R. Powell; M. Jordan; W.F. Seal; R.A. Young; L.W. Jarvis; Clarence A. Hollar; Nena Adams; K.A. Polinsky; D.F. Miller; Pires; F.E. Lockhart; P.E. Maddex; Ted Durr; L. Huffman; G.K. Washington; L.T. Edmonds; B. Booker; C.S. Wingfield; Kelly Harrison; Jane Doe; Linamen; W. Clark; Hankins, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-09-27
Citations: 201 F. App'x 944
Docket Number: No. 04-6928
Parties: Derrymore CAMPBELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE; Gene Johnson; Duncan Mills; Armstrong; John Doe; Rufus Fleming; H.R. Powell; M. Jordan; W.F. Seal; R.A. Young; L.W. Jarvis; Clarence A. Hollar; Nena Adams; K.A. Polinsky; D.F. Miller; Pires; F.E. Lockhart; P.E. Maddex; Ted Durr; L. Huffman; G.K. Wash ington; L.T. Edmonds; B. Booker; C.S. Wingfield; Kelly Harrison; Jane Doe; Linamen; W. Clark; Hankins, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 201
Pages: 944–945

Head Matter:
Derrymore CAMPBELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE; Gene Johnson; Duncan Mills; Armstrong; John Doe; Rufus Fleming; H.R. Powell; M. Jordan; W.F. Seal; R.A. Young; L.W. Jarvis; Clarence A. Hollar; Nena Adams; K.A. Polinsky; D.F. Miller; Pires; F.E. Lockhart; P.E. Maddex; Ted Durr; L. Huffman; G.K. Wash ington; L.T. Edmonds; B. Booker; C.S. Wingfield; Kelly Harrison; Jane Doe; Linamen; W. Clark; Hankins, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 04-6928.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 31, 2006.
Decided: Sept. 27, 2006.
Derrymore Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. Dana L. Gay, Richard Carson Vorhis, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Derrymore Campbell appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment to the defendant prison officials in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action challenging, among other things, the validity and enforcement of the prison's grooming policy. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Campbell v. Angelone, No. CA-01-1023-7 (W.D.Va. Apr. 19, 2004). 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.