Court Opinion

ID: 9401064
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-09 21:00:44.755703+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:50.612051
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7360      Doc: 19        Filed: 06/08/2023   Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-7360

        MALCOLM MUHAMMAD,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        WILLIAM E. JACKSON, Chaplain; JONES, Chaplain, Chaplain at SISP,

                            Defendants - Appellees,

                     and

        WILLIAM JARRETT, Assistant Warden; GREGORY L. HOLLOWAY, Eastern
        Regional Administrator; R. WOODSON, Regional Ombudsmen; QUEEN
        GOODWYN, Food Service Manager; S. TURNER, Food Service Manager; E.
        WITT, Grievance Coordinator; TESEA HARVEY, Statewide Ombudsmen
        Manager,

                            Defendants.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-00746-LO-JFA)

        Submitted: May 30, 2023                                            Decided: June 8, 2023

        Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7360      Doc: 19         Filed: 06/08/2023    Pg: 2 of 3

        Malcolm Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7360      Doc: 19         Filed: 06/08/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Malcolm Muhammad appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment

        to Appellees and dismissing Muhammad’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have reviewed

        the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.

        See Muhammad v. Jackson, No. 1:19-cv-00746-LO-JFA (E.D. Va. Aug. 24, 2021). 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

                                                    3