Case Name: Clayburne Scott WILLIAMSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; James L. Jenkins, Chairman, Virginia Parole Board; Linda R. Pitman, Vice Chairman, Virginia Parole Board; Charles E. James, Sr., Member, Virginia Parole Board; Kent A.P. Smith, Member, Virginia Parole Board; Charles L. Waddell, Member, Virginia Parole Board, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-01-09
Citations: 23 F. App'x 165
Docket Number: No. 01-7518
Parties: Clayburne Scott WILLIAMSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; James L. Jenkins, Chairman, Virginia Parole Board; Linda R. Pitman, Vice Chairman, Virginia Parole Board; Charles E. James, Sr., Member, Virginia Parole Board; Kent A.P. Smith, Member, Virginia Parole Board; Charles L. Waddell, Member, Virginia Parole Board, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 23
Pages: 165–165

Head Matter:
Clayburne Scott WILLIAMSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; James L. Jenkins, Chairman, Virginia Parole Board; Linda R. Pitman, Vice Chairman, Virginia Parole Board; Charles E. James, Sr., Member, Virginia Parole Board; Kent A.P. Smith, Member, Virginia Parole Board; Charles L. Waddell, Member, Virginia Parole Board, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-7518.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 20, 2001.
Decided Jan. 9, 2002.
Clayburne Scott Williamson, Appellant Pro Se.
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Clayburne Scott Williamson, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Williamson v. Angelone, No. CA-01-444-2 (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 8; entered Aug. 9, 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.
DISMISSED.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.