Terrell v. Bassett

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: May 26, 2005
• Docket: 05-6281
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6281

TION BERNARD TERRELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

K. J. BASSETT, Warden in his/her personal and professional capacities; SERGEANT BARNETTE, in his/her personal and professional capacities; SERGEANT DAVIS, in his/her personal and professional capacities; DAVID ROBINSON, Warden, in his/her personal and professional capacities; LIEUTENANT BANKS in his/her personal and professional capacities; MAJOR DILLARD, in his/her personal and professional capacities; ASST WARDEN VAUGHN, in his/her personal and professional capacities; DOC WATSON, in his/her personal and professional capacities; LIEUTENANT COMBS, in his/her personal and professional capacities; MAJOR PAYNE, in his/her personal and professional capacities; GENE SHINAULT, Assistant Warden, in his/her personal and professional capacities; MS. BARBETTO, in his/her personal and professional capacities; CAPTAIN JENKINS, in his/her personal and professional capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (CA-05-2-2)

Submitted: May 19, 2005 Decided: May 26, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tion Bernard Terrell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

Tion Bernard Terrell appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915A (2000) for failure to state a claim on which relief

could be granted. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. See Terrell v. Bassett, No. CA-05-2-2 (E.D.

Va. filed Jan. 21, 2005 & entered Jan. 24, 2005). 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

- 3 -