U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2013

Bradley Maxwell v. Harold Clarke

Bradley Maxwell v. Harold Clarke
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided September 27, 2013

Bradley Maxwell v. Harold Clarke

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7056

BRADLEY MAXWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HAROLD CLARKE; JAMES PARKS; GEORGE HINKLE; GREGORY HALLOWAY; DAVID ZOOK; R.C. MATHENA; DENNIS COLLINS; T. FARRIS; B. D.

COLLINS; J. W. CARICO; C. L. STACY; R. C. WILLIAMS; H. R. HENSLEY; M. COUNTS; BRENDA RAVIZER, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:12-cv-00477-JLK-RSB)

Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 27, 2013

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bradley Maxwell, Appellant Pro Se. Kate Elizabeth Dwyre, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Bradley Maxwell appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Maxwell v. Clarke, No. 7:12-cv-00477- JLK-RSB (W.D. Va. June 13, 2013). We deny Maxwell’s motion to appoint counsel and 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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.