Williams v. Angelone, No. 06-6740 (4th Cir. 2011)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6740 ELTON LEE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor, v. RONALD J. ANGELONE, in his individual and official capacity; GENE M. JOHNSON; H. R. POWELL, Warden, Southampton Correctional Center; RUPUS FLEMING, in his individual and official capacity as the Regional Director; W. W. PIXLEY, Lieutenant of Southampton Correctional Center; J. BARNES, Lieutenant at Southampton Correctional Center; R. A. YOUNG, Regional Director of Virginia Department of Corrections; L. W. JARVIS, Warden at Bland Correctional Center; C. A. HOLLAR, Assistant Warden of Programs at Bland Correctional Center; K. A. POLINSKY, Assistant Warden of Programs at Bland Correctional Center; F. E. LOCKHART, Treatment Program Supervisor at Bland Correctional Center; H. J. HICKMAN, Captain at Bland Correctional Center; S. K. YOUNG, WRSP; A. P. HARVEY, WRSP; SERGEANT WILKINS, WRSP; H. O. YATES, WRSP; H. O. YATES, Major, WRSP; R. SNIDER, Lieutenant; SERGEANT COLLINS, WRSP; COLLEN, Correctional Officer, WRSP; HAMPTON, Sergeant, WRSP; OFFICER MCKINNEY, WRSP; J. MINTON, WRSP; KISER, Correctional Officer, WRSP; JOHN DOE, Correctional Officer, WRSP, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:01-cv-00274-JCT) Submitted: February 23, 2011 Before TRAXLER, Judges. Chief Judge, Decided: and GREGORY and March 21, 2011 SHEDD, Circuit Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elton Lee Williams, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Susan Foster Barr, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Elton Lee Williams appeals the district court s order denying relief on his claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. ยงยง 2000cc to 2000cc-5 (2006). error. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Williams v. Angelone, No. 7:01-cv-00274-JCT (W.D. Va. filed Mar. 23, 2006 & entered Mar. 24, 2006). dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.