Donohue v. Hinkle
Opinion of the Court
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
John Donohue appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Donohue v. Hinkle, No. 7:14-cv-00138-GEC-RSB (W.D.Va. May 15, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
AFFIRMED.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- John DONOHUE v. George HINKLE, Regional Administrator Randall C. Mathena, Warden, ROSP T. Raiford, Counselor, and current Unit Manager at ROSP L. Mullins, Institutional Hearings Officer at ROSP Ingle, C/O at ROSP
- Status
- Published