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)
17-6677•Piper Ann Rountree v. HAROLD CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections
17-6677Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 3, 2017
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6677
PIPER ANN ROUNTREE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections; CHARLENE
DAVIS, Assistant to Gary L. Bass, Virginia Department of Corrections; PHYLLIS
BASKERVILLE, Prior Warden, Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women; GARY
L. BASS, Regional Adminstrator Virginia Department of Corrections; TAMMY
BROWN, Warden, Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women; LOUIS B. CEI;
UNKNOWN MEMBERS OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS'
FAITH REVIEW COMMITTEE; MICHAEL SHUPE; LAYTON LESTER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:15-cv-00220-GEC-RSB)
Submitted: September 28, 2017 Decided: October 3, 2017
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Piper Ann Rountree, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Haeberle Cahill, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Piper Ann Rountree appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on her civil
action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) and the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc to 2000cc–5 (2012), and denying her
motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Rountree v. Clarke, No.
7:15-cv-00220-GEC-RSB (W.D. Va. Jan. 26, 2016; Feb. 16, 2017; Apr. 28, 2017). 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 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.