Wenmoth v. Duncan

Opinion

ON REHEARING

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7750

ANDREW D. WENMOTH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

OVID WESLEY DUNCAN, JR., Librarian; LARRY MCBRIDE, Correctional Officer II; KENNY AIKENS, Correctional Hearing Officer; DIANA ROBIN MILLER, Associate Warden of Programs; TERESA WAID, Warden; JIM RUBENSTEIN, Commissioner; CHARLENE SOTAK, Inmate Grievance Coordinator,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-7826

OVID WESLEY DUNCAN, JR., Librarian; LARRY MCBRIDE, Correctional Officer II; KENNY AIKENS, Correctional Hearing Officer; DIANA ROBIN MILLER, Associate Warden of Programs; TERESA WAID, Warden; JIM RUBENSTEIN, Commissioner; CHARLENE SOTAK, Inmate Grievance Coordinator,

Defendants - Appellees. No. 10-6073

OVID WESLEY DUNCAN, JR., Librarian; LARRY MCBRIDE, Correctional Officer II; KENNY AIKENS, Correctional Hearing Officer; DIANA ROBIN MILLER, Associate Warden of Programs; TERESA WAID, Warden; JIM RUBENSTEIN, Commissioner; CHARLENE SOTAK, Inmate Grievance Coordinator,

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:08-cv-00182-JPB-JSK)

Submitted: May 13, 2010 Decided: June 9, 2010

Before DUNCAN and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew D. Wenmoth, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas E. Buck, April Joy Wheeler, BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Andrew D. Wenmoth

appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation

of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Wenmoth’s motion for

appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. Wenmoth v. Duncan, No. 3:08-cv-00182-JPB-JSK

(N.D. W. Va. Aug. 26, 2009 & Dec. 18, 2009). 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