Lord Versatile v. Gene Johnson
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:09-cv-00120-HEH-MHL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998899243]. Mailed to: Lord Versatile. [12-6211]
Appeal: 12-6211
Doc: 10
Filed: 07/20/2012
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6211
LORD VERSATILE, a/k/a Venson Leon Coward,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GENE JOHNSON, Director Virginia DOC; JOHN JABE, Deputy
Director of Operations; BENJAMIN A. WRIGHT, Chairman
Publication Review Board; W. D. JENNINGS, Ph.D, Formal
Chairman Publication Review; LORETTA KELLY, Warden, Sussex I
Prison; A. DAVID ROBINSON, Regional Director,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:09-cv-00120-HEH-MHL)
Submitted:
June 29, 2012
Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.
SHEDD,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
and
July 20, 2012
HAMILTON,
Senior
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lord Versatile, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 12-6211
Doc: 10
Filed: 07/20/2012
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Lord
the
magistrate
accepting
Versatile
relief
on
Versatile’s
appeals
judge’s
the
action
district
court’s
recommendation
alleging
and
violations
order
denying
under
the
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
We
have
reviewed
the
record
and
find
no
reversible
error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.
Versatile v. Johnson, No. 3:09-cv-00120-HEH-MHL (E.D.
Va. Oct. 27, 2011).
facts
and
materials
legal
before
We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions
are
adequately
the
and
argument
court
presented
would
not
in
the
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?