Lord Versatile v. Loretta Kelly

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cv-00308-HEH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998950438]. Mailed to: Lord Versatile. [12-6858]

Appeal: 12-6858

Doc: 8

Filed: 10/02/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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

Appeal: 12-6858

Doc: 8

Filed: 10/02/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Appeal: 12-6858

Doc: 8

Filed: 10/02/2012

Pg: 3 of 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).
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
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