Lord Versatile, a/k/a Venson Leon Coward v. LORETTA KELLY, Warden, Sussex I State Prison

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6858
LORD VERSATILE, a/k/a Venson Leon Coward,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LORETTA KELLY, Warden, Sussex I State Prison; A. F. MILLER,
Operations Officer, Sussex I State Prison; L. RODRIGUES,
Correctional Officer Sgt., Sussex I State Prison; G. DAVIS,
Correctional Officer, Sussex I State Prison; H. MAVOR, Sgt.,
Hearing Officer, Sussex I State Prison; R. TUELL, Captain,
Sussex I State Prison; A. DAVID ROBINSON, Regional Director,
Eastern Office; GENE M. JOHNSON, Former Director, VDOC; R.
W. SPROUSE, Intel-Officer, Sussex I State Prison; W. BROWN,
IHO, Sussex I State Prison; K. FOWLKES, Former Unit Manager,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
D. HUDSON, Grievance Coordinator, Sussex I State Prison;
SHARON S. BURGESS, Regional Office Appeals Manager; MELISSA
WELCH, Offender Discipline Unit Manager; JOHN M. JABE,
Deputy Director, VDOC; T. FOWLKES, Unit Manager, Sussex I
State Prison,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:11-cv-00308-HEH)
Submitted: September 27, 2012 Decided: October 2, 2012

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lord Versatile, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Lord Versatile appeals the district court’s order
dismissing with prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint.*
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Versatile v. Kelly, No. 3:11-cv-00308-HEH (E.D. Va. Apr.
13, 2012). 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
* On appeal, Versatile does not contest the district court’s
dismissal of two of his claims without prejudice to his right to
refile the claims in new complaints.

-- 3 of 3 --