Jesus Jehovah v. Harold Clarke

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6913

JESUS EMMANUEL JEHOVAH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MR. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director; MR. A. DAVID ROBINSON, Deputy Director; WILLIAM "BUCK" ROGERS, Deputy Director; MR. JOHN WOODSON, Warden - Augusta Correctional Center; MR. DARELL MILLER, Assistant Warden - Augusta Correctional Center; MS. LYNN GRAHAM, Operations Manager - Augusta Correctional Center; MS. TRACY LAWHORN, Institutional Program Manager - Augusta Correctional Center; RICHARD ATKINS, Law Librarian - Augusta Correctional Center; CAROLINE DULL, Accountant - Augusta Correctional Center; MS. JUNE MILLER, Accountant - Augusta Correctional Center; MS. B. WILHELM, Account Clerk - Augusta Correctional Center; MR. C. BYRD, Sergeant - Sussex II State Prison; MS. TURNER, Corporal - Sussex II State Prison; OFFICER X, Sussex II State Prison; OFFICER Y, Sussex II State Prison; OFFICER Z, Sussex II State Prison; MR. HARRIS L. DIGGS, Warden - Deep Meadow Correctional Center; MS. CHRISLEY, Sergeant - Deep Meadow Correctional Center; MS. SEAY, Ombudsman/Law Librarian - Deep Meadow Correctional Center; MRS. JOYCE A. ANTONIO,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, District Judge. (7:14-cv-00538-JPJ-RSB)

Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 21, 2015 Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jesus Emmanuel Jehovah, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Jesus Jehovah Emmanuel appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court. See Jehovah v. Clarke, No. 7:14-cv-00538-

JPJ-RSB (W.D. Va. May 11, 2015). 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