Kevin Snodgrass, Jr. v. S.L. Messer
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:16-cv-00050-EKD-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000129127]. Mailed to: Kevin Snodgrass Jr. RED ONION STATE PRISON 10800 H. Jack Rose Highway P. O. Box 970 Pound, VA 24279-0000. [17-6360]
Appeal: 17-6360
Doc: 9
Filed: 08/01/2017
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6360
KEVIN SNODGRASS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
S.L. MESSER; M.L. COUNTS, Inmate Hearing Officer at ROSP; C. BISHOP, C/O
at ROSP; E.R. BARKSDALE, Warden at ROSP; J. BENTLEY, Investigator at
ROSP; JOE FANNIN, Lieutenant at ROSP; TORI RAIFORD, Unit Manager at
ROSP; GARRY A. ADAMS, Lieutenant at ROSP; HAROLD CLARK, Director of
VA. DOC,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Elizabeth Kay Dillon, District Judge. (7:16-cv-00050-EKD-RSB)
Submitted: July 27, 2017
Decided: August 1, 2017
Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin Snodgrass, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Michael Parsons, Assistant Attorney
General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 17-6360
Doc: 9
Filed: 08/01/2017
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Snodgrass, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Snodgrass v. Messer,
No. 7:16-cv-00050-EKD-RSB (W.D. Va. Mar. 10, 2017). We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not 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?