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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 12-6211 Doc: 10 Filed: 07/20/2012 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6211 LORD VERSATILE, a/k/a Venson Leon Coward, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GENE JOHNSON, Director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 SHEDD, Decided: Circuit Judges, and July 20, 2012 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?