Page 61
Banks, sued in his individual and official capacities; R.D. Boyers, sued in his individual and official capacities; M. Peters, sued in his individual and official capacities; P. Massie, sued in his individual and official capacities; Correctional Officer Harlow, sued in his individual and official capacities; V.S. Gray, a/k/a S. Gray, sued in his individual and official capacities; T.A. Martin, sued in his individual and official capacities; Correctional Officer Newcombs, sued in his individual and official capacities; Correctional Officer Cash, sued in his individual and official capacities; Correctional Officer Enurian, sued in his individual and official capacities; Correctional Officer Mauzy, sued in his individual and official capacities; R.F. Wilson, sued in his individual and official capacities; R.A. Young, sued in his individual and official capacities; L.W. Jarvis, sued in his individual and official capacities; P.E. Maddox, sued in his individual and official capacities; V.J. Bandy, sued in his individual and official capacities; K.A. Polinsky, sued in his individual and official capacities; Clarence A. Hollar, sued in his individual and official capacities; R.S. Jackson, sued in his individual and official capacities; Correctional Officer Pires, sued in his individual and official capacities; L. Davenport, Defendants-Appellees, and United States of America, Intervenor.
No. 06-7691.United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.Submitted: January 17, 2007.
Decided: August 17, 2007.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:01-cv-01008-jct).
Shaka Zulu Acoolla, Appellant pro se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Mark Ralph Davis, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shaka Zulu Acoolla appeals the district court’s order granting relief to the defendants and dismissing his claims under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Acoolla v. Angelone, No. 7:01-cv-01008-jct, 2006 WL 2548207
(W.D.Va. Sept. 1, 2006). 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.
Page 62