Pamela J. Anderson v. JEFFERY DILLMAN, Assistant Warden, Operations, Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7171
PAMELA J. ANDERSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JEFFERY DILLMAN, Assistant Warden, Operations,
Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women; ROBERT
ARMSTRONG, Institutional Investigator,
Fluvanna Correctional Center for women;
PATRICIA HUFFMAN, Warden, Fluvanna
Correctional Center for Women; MELISSA
HOUCHENS, inmate Hearings Officer, FCCW, sued
in official and individual capacity; PAUL
RICE, Treatment Program Supervisor, FCCW, sued
in his official and individual capacities; KIM
WARE, Secretary, sued in her official and
individual capacity; TRACY MEYERHOFFER,
Grievance Coordinator and Human Rights
Advocate, FCCW, sued in official and
individual capacities; E. R. BARRACK,
Representative, Investigative Unit of DOC
Internal Affairs, sued in his official and
individual capacities; LAURA ANDERSON, Acting
Principal of Department of Correctional
Education, sued in her official and individual
capacities; COURTNEY DAVIS, Counselor, sued in
her official and individual capacities; DONNA
ANDERSON, Unit Manager, sued in her official
and individual capacities; LARRY HUFFMAN,
Regional Director, DOC’s Northern Regional
Office #2; DEWEY JENNINGS, Officer, Operation,
FCCW; DEREK ANDERSON, Major, Heal of Security,
FCCW,
Defendants - Appellees.

-- 1 of 4 --

2

-- 2 of 4 --

3
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
Judge. (CA-01-768-7)
Submitted: January 31, 2003 Decided: February 14, 2003
Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Pamela J. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Pamela J. Anderson appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant the
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm on the
reasoning of the district court. See Anderson v. Dillman, No. CA-
01-768-7 (W.D. Va. July 19, 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.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --