Case Name: Tommy WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Vanessa CRAWFORD, Sheriff, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-11
Citations: 449 F. App'x 288
Docket Number: No. 11-7134
Parties: Tommy WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Vanessa CRAWFORD, Sheriff, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 449
Pages: 288–289

Head Matter:
Tommy WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Vanessa CRAWFORD, Sheriff, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 11-7134.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 4, 2011.
Decided: Oct. 11, 2011.
Tommy Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tommy Williams, a Virginia inmate, brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action after correctional officials seized various items of his personal property. The district court dismissed his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l) (2006), and Williams now appeals. Because Williams had an adequate post-deprivation remedy under Virginia law for the allegedly wrongful confiscation, his property was not taken without due process. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533-36, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984). Nor has Williams alleged that any interference with his legal mail caused him to suffer actual detriment to a legal proceeding. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-51, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996); White v. White, 886 F.2d 721, 723 (4th Cir.1989). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.