Harvey v. Mahon

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7705

MICHAEL RAY HARVEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DANIEL T. MAHON, Warden; CAPTAIN DAVIS, C.C.A.; D. A. BRAXTON, Warden, ROSP; PAUL WILLIAMS; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; R. FLEMING, Major; J. K. VAUGHN; R. T. COKER; V. SMITH, Doctor; RUFUS FLEMING; DOCTOR KING; DAVID A. SMITH, Assistant Warden, H.C.C.; J. REDD, Segregation Counselor, H.C.C.,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BUTLER; V. L. EVANS; WILLIAM RODGERS, Regional Administrator, Central Region, VDOC; L. DOTSON, Warden, L.C.C.; S. FLEENOR, Grievance Coordinator at ROSP, VDOC; JOHN DOE, I, person named unknown at C.C.A., VDOC, employee at C.C.A. charges with duty of disciplinary hearings; JOHN DOE, II, person named unknown at C.C.A., VDOC, employee at C.C.A. charges with duty of Ombudsman for D.O.C.; JOHN DOE, III, person named unknown at C.C.A., employee head of medical staff; JOHN DOE, IV, person unknown at VDOC, Director of Medical Services and Medical Policy of D.O.C.,

Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-829-7)

Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: April 4, 2003

Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Ray Harvey, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, Jim Harold Guynn, Jr., GUYNN & MEMMER, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

2 PER CURIAM:

Michael Ray Harvey appeals the district court’s order denying

his motion for a preliminary injunction in this action filed

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. See Harvey v. Mahon, No. CA-

02-829-7 (W.D. Va. Sept. 11, 2002). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED