Piper Rountree v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:15-cv-00220-GEC-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000166557].. [17-6677]

Appeal: 17-6677

Doc: 11

Filed: 10/03/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6677

PIPER ANN ROUNTREE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections; CHARLENE
DAVIS, Assistant to Gary L. Bass, Virginia Department of Corrections; PHYLLIS
BASKERVILLE, Prior Warden, Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women; GARY
L. BASS, Regional Adminstrator Virginia Department of Corrections; TAMMY
BROWN, Warden, Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women; LOUIS B. CEI;
UNKNOWN MEMBERS OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS'
FAITH REVIEW COMMITTEE; MICHAEL SHUPE; LAYTON LESTER,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:15-cv-00220-GEC-RSB)

Submitted: September 28, 2017

Decided: October 3, 2017

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Piper Ann Rountree, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Haeberle Cahill, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Appeal: 17-6677

Doc: 11

Filed: 10/03/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 17-6677

Doc: 11

Filed: 10/03/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Piper Ann Rountree appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on her civil
action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) and the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc to 2000cc–5 (2012), and denying her
motion to reconsider.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Rountree v. Clarke, No.
7:15-cv-00220-GEC-RSB (W.D. Va. Jan. 26, 2016; Feb. 16, 2017; Apr. 28, 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

3