Case Name: Curtis J. BRIDGES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E. Montgomery TUCKER, Chairman, Virginia Parole Board; Gene M. Johnson, Deputy Director, Division of Operations, VDOC; Jack Lee, Warden, Keen Mountain Correctional Center; John R. Alderman, Chairman of the Virginia Parole Board; James Jenkins, Chairman of the Virginia Parole Board; Ron Angelone, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-03-16
Citations: 5 F. App'x 315
Docket Number: No. 01-6004
Parties: Curtis J. BRIDGES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E. Montgomery TUCKER, Chairman, Virginia Parole Board; Gene M. Johnson, Deputy Director, Division of Operations, VDOC; Jack Lee, Warden, Keen Mountain Correctional Center; John R. Alderman, Chairman of the Virginia Parole Board; James Jenkins, Chairman of the Virginia Parole Board; Ron Angelone, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 5
Pages: 315–315

Head Matter:
Curtis J. BRIDGES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E. Montgomery TUCKER, Chairman, Virginia Parole Board; Gene M. Johnson, Deputy Director, Division of Operations, VDOC; Jack Lee, Warden, Keen Mountain Correctional Center; John R. Alderman, Chairman of the Virginia Parole Board; James Jenkins, Chairman of the Virginia Parole Board; Ron Angelone, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-6004.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2001.
Decided March 16, 2001.
Curtis J. Bridges, pro se.
Before DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Curtis J. Bridges appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2000) 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. See Bridges v. Tucker, No. CA-00-771-7 (W.D.Va. Nov. 21, 2000). 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.