Case Name: Frank Linwood ELAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A. PIENATT, Lieutenant, Correctional Officer; M.B. Monroe, Correctional Officer; A. Pierce, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-03-30
Citations: 6 F. App'x 213
Docket Number: No. 01-6178
Parties: Frank Linwood ELAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A. PIENATT, Lieutenant, Correctional Officer; M.B. Monroe, Correctional Officer; A. Pierce, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 6
Pages: 213–214

Head Matter:
Frank Linwood ELAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A. PIENATT, Lieutenant, Correctional Officer; M.B. Monroe, Correctional Officer; A. Pierce, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-6178.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 22, 2001.
Decided March 30, 2001.
Frank Linwood Elam, pro se.
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Frank Linwood Elam 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 Elam v. Pienatt, No. CA-00-929-2 (E.D.Va. Jan. 8, 2001). We deny Elam's motions for appointment of counsel and for an evaluation by an independent handwriting expert at government expense. 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.