Case Name: Roberto CHAVEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John R. ALDERMAN, Virginia Parole Board Chairperson; Linda R. Pitman, Vice-Chairperson, Virginia Parole Board, Defendants-Appellees, and Charles E. James, Sr., Board Member, Virginia Parole Board; Kent A.P. Smith, Board Member, Virginia Parole Board; G. Wayne Pike, Board Member, Virginia Parole Board, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-11-15
Citations: 21 F. App'x 237
Docket Number: No. 01-6737
Parties: Roberto CHAVEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John R. ALDERMAN, Virginia Parole Board Chairperson; Linda R. Pitman, Vice-Chairperson, Virginia Parole Board, Defendants-Appellees, and Charles E. James, Sr., Board Member, Virginia Parole Board; Kent A.P. Smith, Board Member, Virginia Parole Board; G. Wayne Pike, Board Member, Virginia Parole Board, Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 21
Pages: 237–238

Head Matter:
Roberto CHAVEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John R. ALDERMAN, Virginia Parole Board Chairperson; Linda R. Pitman, Vice-Chairperson, Virginia Parole Board, Defendants-Appellees, and Charles E. James, Sr., Board Member, Virginia Parole Board; Kent A.P. Smith, Board Member, Virginia Parole Board; G. Wayne Pike, Board Member, Virginia Parole Board, Defendants.
No. 01-6737.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 8, 2001.
Decided Nov. 15, 2001.
Roberto Chavez, pro se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, VA, for appellees.
Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Roberto Chavez appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Chavez's motion for appointment of counsel and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Chavez v. Alderman, No. CA-99-1550-AM (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 27, 2001; entered Apr. 2, 2001). 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.