Case Name: Lewis A. ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jerry DAVIS, Inmate Records; Nurse Hewlitt, Mecklenburg Medical Staff; Lieutenant Nipper, Shift commander, M.C.C.; Major Earley; Ms. Royster, Operation Officer at M.C.C.; Officer Rollston; Officer Loftis, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-11-14
Citations: 50 F. App'x 632
Docket Number: No. 02-7128
Parties: Lewis A. ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jerry DAVIS, Inmate Records; Nurse Hewlitt, Mecklenburg Medical Staff; Lieutenant Nipper, Shift commander, M.C.C.; Major Earley; Ms. Royster, Operation Officer at M.C.C.; Officer Rollston; Officer Loftis, DefendantsAppellees.
Judges: Before WILLIAM D. WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 50
Pages: 632–633

Head Matter:
Lewis A. ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jerry DAVIS, Inmate Records; Nurse Hewlitt, Mecklenburg Medical Staff; Lieutenant Nipper, Shift commander, M.C.C.; Major Earley; Ms. Royster, Operation Officer at M.C.C.; Officer Rollston; Officer Loftis, DefendantsAppellees.
No. 02-7128.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 7, 2002.
Decided Nov. 14, 2002.
Lewis A. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Frank Fletcher Rennie, IV, Cowan & Owen, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WILLIAM D. WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Lewis A. Robinson appeals the district court's judgment denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Robinson v. Davis, No. CA-99-1866 (E.D. Va. Jan. 30, 2002; July 17, 2002). We deny Robinson's motion for appointment of counsel. 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.