UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6587

LOUIS ROY CHAPMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PHYLLIS SMITH, Education Director, LVCC; DINAH KREITZ; SHANIQUA MOORE, Law Library, LVCC; DAVE ROBINSON, Chief of Operations, LVCC; T.

WALKER, Recreation Supervisor; MARILYN SHAW, Assistant Warden Program, LVCC; CRYSTAL JONES, Facility Ombudsman, LVCC; RENEE WOODSON, Regional Ombudsman, VDOC; K. COSBY, Regional Ombudsman, VDOC; LAURA TORGESON; TAMIKA SOMMERVILLE; TALIA NEVILLE; KIAESHIA THOMAS; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; GLOBAL EXPERTS AND OUTSOURCING, INC., Defendants - Appellees, and JENNIFER WALKER, Food Service Director, LVCC; N. C. EDMONDS, Captain, LVCC; MASON, Food Service Supervisor, LVCC; J. SMITH, Health Services Administrator, LVCC; SUSAN MINTER, Nurse Practitioner, LVCC; KEEFE CORPORATION, INC., Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:18-cv-00597-JAG-RCY)

Submitted: September 14, 2021 Decided: September 20, 2021 Before THACKER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis Roy Chapman, Appellant Pro Se. John P. O’Herron, THOMPSON MCMULLAN PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Louis Roy Chapman appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion to recuse, dismissing as frivolous or for failure to state a claim several of his claims, and granting Defendants summary judgment on the remaining claims in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.

We have reviewed the record and Chapman’s informal brief and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Chapman v. Smith, No. 3:18-cv-00597-JAG-RCY (E.D. Va. Mar. 31, 2020; Sept. 21, 2020; Sept. 24, 2020; Mar.

3, 2021). We 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