# Mark Richards v. Wendy Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · October 25, 2013

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1087083

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 25, 2013
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1087083

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7180

MARK E. RICHARDS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WENDY K. BROWN, Manager, Court and Legal Services Section,
Virginia Department of Corrections, sued individual and
official capacity; GARY L. BASS, Chief of Operations,
Virginia Department of Corrections, sued individual and
official capacity; LESLIE RITENOUR, Legal Researcher, Court
and Legal Services Section, Virginia Department of
Corrections, sued individual and official capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:11-cv-00426-REP)

Submitted: October 22, 2013 Decided: October 25, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark E. Richards, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Mark E. Richards appeals the district court’s orders

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing as frivolous his complaint and denying his motion

submitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. Richards v. Brown, No.

3:11-cv-00426-REP (E.D. Va. Sept. 18, 2012; June 26, 2013). 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

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1087083. Public record. Not legal advice.