Case Name: Peter O. ODIGHIZUWA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tracey S. RAY, Warden; Lieutenant Mullins, in his official and individual capacity; Lieutenant Younee, in his official and individual capacity; Lieutenant Rose, in his official and individual capacity; Sergeant Day, in his official and individual capacity; Captain Taylor, in his official and individual capacity; Doctor Williams, in his individual capacity and official capacity; Lieutenant Younce, Defendants-Appellees. Peter O. Odighizuwa, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tracey S. Ray, Warden; Lieutenant Mullins, in his official and individual capacity; Lieutenant Younee, in his official and individual capacity; Lieutenant Rose, in his official and individual capacity; Sergeant Day, in his official and individual capacity; Captain Taylor, in his official and individual capacity; Lieutenant Younce, Defendants-Appellees, and Doctor Williams, in his individual capacity and official capacity, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-22
Citations: 217 F. App'x 285
Docket Number: Nos. 06-7331, 06-7850
Parties: Peter O. ODIGHIZUWA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tracey S. RAY, Warden; Lieutenant Mullins, in his official and individual capacity; Lieutenant Younee, in his official and individual capacity; Lieutenant Rose, in his official and individual capacity; Sergeant Day, in his official and individual capacity; Captain Taylor, in his official and individual capacity; Doctor Williams, in his individual capacity and official capacity; Lieutenant Younce, Defendants-Appellees. Peter O. Odighizuwa, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tracey S. Ray, Warden; Lieutenant Mullins, in his official and individual capacity; Lieutenant Younee, in his official and individual capacity; Lieutenant Rose, in his official and individual capacity; Sergeant Day, in his official and individual capacity; Captain Taylor, in his official and individual capacity; Lieutenant Younce, Defendants-Appellees, and Doctor Williams, in his individual capacity and official capacity, Defendant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 217
Pages: 285–286

Head Matter:
Peter O. ODIGHIZUWA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tracey S. RAY, Warden; Lieutenant Mullins, in his official and individual capacity; Lieutenant Younee, in his official and individual capacity; Lieutenant Rose, in his official and individual capacity; Sergeant Day, in his official and individual capacity; Captain Taylor, in his official and individual capacity; Doctor Williams, in his individual capacity and official capacity; Lieutenant Younce, Defendants-Appellees. Peter O. Odighizuwa, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tracey S. Ray, Warden; Lieutenant Mullins, in his official and individual capacity; Lieutenant Younee, in his official and individual capacity; Lieutenant Rose, in his official and individual capacity; Sergeant Day, in his official and individual capacity; Captain Taylor, in his official and individual capacity; Lieutenant Younce, Defendants-Appellees, and Doctor Williams, in his individual capacity and official capacity, Defendant.
Nos. 06-7331, 06-7850.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 15, 2007.
Decided: Feb. 22, 2007.
Peter O. Odighizuwa, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Peter 0. Odighizuwa appeals the district court's orders denying a preliminary injunction and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Odighizuwa v. Ray, No. 7:06-cv-00185-gec (W.D.Va. July 13, 2006; Oct. 24, 2006). We deny Odighizuwa's motions for appointment of counsel and for an injunction. 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.