Timothy Coles v. Harold Clarke, No. 14-7481 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7481 TIMOTHY LEE COLES, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. HAROLD CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, sued individually and in official capacity; GARY BASS, Chief of operations of Central Classification Services, sued individually and in official capacity; WENDY HOBBS, Eastern Regional Director, sued individually and in official capacity; MARIE VARGO, Warden of Sussex II State Prison, sued individually and in official capacity; ROY CLARY, Unit Manager of 3 Building of (SXIISP), sued individually and in official capacity; ANTON DANIELS, Correctional Institutional Rehabilitation Counselor of Sussex II State Prison, sued individually and in official capacity, Defendants – Appellees, and GAIL JONES, Chair Person, Central Classification Services (CCS), sued individually and in official capacity, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:12-cv-00001-REP) Submitted: February 27, 2015 Decided: March 20, 2015 Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy Lee Coles, Appellant Pro Se. Margaret Hoehl O’Shea, Lara Kate Jacobs Todd, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Timothy Lee Coles appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint for failure to state a claim. reversible error. We have Va. the record and find no Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. (E.D. reviewed Sept. 12, Coles v. Clarke, No. 3:12-cv-00001-REP 2014). 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 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.
