Toles v. Young ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6599
DARNELL A. TOLES,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
S. K. YOUNG; A. P. HARVEY; L. T. JANEWAY;
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MIKE MULLINS, a/k/a
Correctional Officer Millin; SERGEANT SHORT;
GENE M. JOHNSON,
Defendants - Appellants,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Intervenor/Defendant - Appellee.
No. 02-6600
DARNELL A. TOLES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
S. K. YOUNG; A. P. HARVEY; L. T. JANEWAY;
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MIKE MULLINS, a/k/a
Correctional Officer Millin, SERGEANT SHORT;
GENE M. JOHNSON,
Defendants - Appellees,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Intervenor/Defendant - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge;
Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge. (CA-00-210)
Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: January 24, 2003
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
No. 02-6599 dismissed and No. 02-6600 affirmed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Darnell A. Toles, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant
Attorney General, Susan Foster Barr, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Mark Bernard Stern, Ara B.
Gershengorn, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
In No. 02-6600, Darnell A. Toles appeals the district court’s
order granting summary judgment to the defendant prison officials
in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action attacking enforcement of the
prison’s grooming policy. In No. 02-6599, the prison officials
cross-appealed, arguing the district court should have dismissed
Toles’ complaint on other grounds. In No. 02-6600, we affirm the
district court’s order for the reasons stated by the district
court. See Toles v. Young, No. CA-00-210 (W.D. Va. Mar. 6, 2002).
We dismiss the cross-appeal, No. 02-6599, for lack of standing.
See Deposit Guar. Nat’l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 333-34 (1980);
HCA Health Servs. of Va. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 957 F.2d
120, 123 (4th Cir. 1992). 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.
No. 02-6599 - DISMISSED
No. 02-6600 - AFFIRMED
3