Court Opinion

ID: 989327
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:05:29.141252+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:20.833486
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

DAVID TERRY KIDD, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

RUFUS FLEMING, Warden; FRANK
MARDAVICH, Assistant Warden,
Treatment; DAVID ROBINSON,
Assistant Warden, Operations;
KIMBERLEY H. RUNION, Operations
Officer; KEITH DAVIS, T.P.S.;
JAMES F. HOOKE, Psychologist; CARL
MANIS, Counselor; SALLY OVERTON-
BARKSDALE, Counselor; MARIE
OAKES, Counselor; ROBYN M.                          No. 95-7852
CLIFTON, Former Counselor;
SERGEANT WILSON, Building
Sergeant, 8-4 Shift; L. E. NELSON;
B. STITH; FRED W. GREENE;
DAVID R. GRAHAM; CASSANDRA
TAYLOR; MR. MCCORMIC; RON
BOWEN; SERGEANT LEGGE; R.
MACKLIN, Correctional Officer,
Defendants-Appellees,

and

DAWN HANES, Psychologist,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-94-483-2)

Submitted: March 26, 1996
Decided: May 21, 1996

Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and
CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

David Terry Kidd, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Martha Murphey Parrish,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record
and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accord-
ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Kidd v.
Fleming, No. CA-94-483-2 (E.D. Va. Oct. 18, 1995). We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    2