Madison v. Johnson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 18, 2001
• Docket: 00-7667
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7667

IRA WAYNE MADISON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

KEITH WILLIAM DEBLASIO; DONALD WELLS; S. BATTS; D. WILSON; D. MCBRIDE; JOHN HARRIS; ERIC HOBBS; NASH; DONALD WAYNE PEERY; KEVIN A. EGGLESTON; STEVEN C. WHISENANT; WALTER EPPS; WESLEY HAMMOND; CLARENCE W. TERRY; THOMAS ALEXANDER; DERRICK K. JONES,

Plaintiffs,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Deputy Director, Virginia De- partment of Corrections; RON ANGELONE, Direc- tor, Virginia Department of Corrections; W. P. ROGERS, Regional Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; C. D. LARSON, Warden, Lunen- burg Correctional Center; CAROL F. WALLACE, Associate Warden of Operations, Lunenburg Cor- rectional Center; JERRY R. TOWNSEND, Major, Lunenburg Correctional Center; sued in their individual and official capacities; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendants - Appellees.

KAREEM HARRIS,

Movant. No. 00-7668

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Depart- ment of Corrections; GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; DAVID A. GARRAGHTY, Warden, G.R.C.C.; G.R.C.C. STAFF AND SECURITY,

Movant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-1818-AM, CA-99-1859-AM)

Submitted: May 29, 2001 Decided: June 18, 2001

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ira Wayne Madison, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assis- tant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Ira Wayne Madison appeals from the district court’s order

granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants in his civil

action challenging Division Operating Procedure 864, a prison

grooming policy requiring that male inmates’ hair not be more than

one inch in thickness/depth and prohibiting beards. We have re-

viewed the record and the district court’s opinion, along with

Madison’s allegations of error, and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Madison v. Johnson, No. CA-99-1818-AM, and Madison v. Angelone, No.

CA-99-1859-AM (E.D. Va. filed Oct. 25, 2000; entered Oct. 30,

2000). 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