Court Opinion

ID: 9397992
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-27 21:00:47.714733+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:29.496240
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6027      Doc: 10         Filed: 05/26/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6027

        JENSEN KEN ALEXANDER,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        JOSEPH ELY, Unit Manager of “D” Building at the time; MRS. CHURCH,
        Counselor/I.C.A. member; MR. KING, Major/I.C.A. member; DENNIS COLLINS,
        Head of Unit Managers/I.C.A. member; MR. CHURCH, Lieutenant/I.C.A. member;
        MR. MANIS, Warden; BRENDA RAVIZEE, Institutional Ombudsman Wallens
        Ridge; DAVID ANDERSON, Assistant Warden/I.C.A.; RICHARD LIGHT,
        Lieutenant of “D” Building at the time/I.C.A. Member; MR. CROWDER, Regional
        Ombudsman,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Roanoke. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (7:20-cv-00766-JPJ-PMS)

        Submitted: May 23, 2023                                           Decided: May 26, 2023

        Before AGEE, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jensen Ken Alexander, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6027     Doc: 10         Filed: 05/26/2023   Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Jensen Ken Alexander appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his

        42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Alexander v. Ely, No. 7:20-cv-00766-

        JPJ-PMS (W.D. Va., Oct. 27, 2022). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

        and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and

        argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                   AFFIRMED

                                                   2