Piper Rountree v. Tammy Brown

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999586188-2], denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999586172-2]. Originating case number: 7:11-cv-00572-GEC-RSB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999693450]. Mailed to: Piper Rountree. [15-6655]

Appeal: 15-6655

Doc: 29

Filed: 11/05/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6655

PIPER A. ROUNTREE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
TAMMY BROWN,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
HAROLD CLARK; JOHN JABE; WENDY HOBBS; D. RADCLIFF-WALKER; T.
COX; K. STAPLETON; D. CARTER; P. SOUKOP; MS. SWANN; S. HORN;
V. BOOKER; GENE JOHNSON; MS. SNOW; J. BLAND,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (7:11-cv-00572-GEC-RSB)

Submitted:

October 30, 2015

Decided:

November 5, 2015

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Piper A. Rountree, Appellant Pro Se.
Richard Carson Vorhis,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Kate Elizabeth Dwyre, OFFICE

Appeal: 15-6655

Doc: 29

Filed: 11/05/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-6655

Doc: 29

Filed: 11/05/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Piper

A.

Rountree

appeals

the

district

court’s

orders

denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint and her
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion.
find

no

reversible

error.

We have reviewed the record and
Accordingly,

reasons stated by the district court.

we

affirm

for

the

Rountree v. Brown, No.

7:11-cv-00572-GEC-RSB (W.D. Va. Mar. 9, 2015; Mar. 26, 2015).
We deny Rountree’s motion for transcripts at the government’s
expense and dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

3