Piper Rountree v. Harold Clarke
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:15-cv-00220-GEC-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [17-6677]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
PIPER ANN ROUNTREE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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.
Pg: 2 of 3
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 3 of 3
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
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?