The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
02-6503•Reginald Keith Garrison v. JOHN H. THOMAS, Deputy Director
02-6503Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 28, 2002
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6503
REGINALD KEITH GARRISON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JOHN H. THOMAS, Deputy Director; KULON WILLIS,
Contract Monitor; RONALD ANGELONE, Director,
Virginia Department of Corrections; EDWARD C.
MORRIS, Deputy Director, Virginia Department
of Corrections; EDDIE LEE PEARSON, Warden,
Sussex II State Prison; DAVID B. EVERTT,
Assistant Warden of Operations and Support,
Sussex II State Prison; E. T. TURNER, Unit
Manager, Sussex II State Prison; LIEUTENANT
CLINTSCALE, Sussex II State Prison,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS; ELWOOD YORK, Director of External
Confinement; ODIE WASHINGTON, Director, D.C.
Department of Corrections,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
(CA-01-816)
Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 28, 2002
-- 1 of 2 --
2
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reginald Keith Garrison, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Garrett
Hill, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Reginald Keith Garrison appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001)
complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s
opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court. See Garrison v. Thomas, No. CA-01-816 (E.D. Va.
filed Mar. 11, 2002; entered Mar. 12, 2002). 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.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.