32:T506,{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"Legislation","name":"Tyrone Ragland v. S. Lee, 687 F. App'x 270","datePublished":"2017-04-28","legislationDate":"2017-04-28","citation":"Tyrone Ragland v. S. Lee, 687 F. App'x 270 (4th Cir. 2017)","countryOfOrigin":"USA","jurisdiction":"Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit","description":"Read the full text of Tyrone Ragland v. S. Lee (Tyrone Ragland v. S. Lee, 687 F. App'x 270 (4th Cir. 2017)). This legal opinion, filed in 2017-04-28, from the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit discusses important legal matters. Access this case and related legal documents on Midpage, an AI-powered legal research platform.","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/tyrone-ragland-v-s-lee--4164471"},"author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"url":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/tyrone-ragland-v-s-lee--4164471","isPartOf":{"@type":"WebSite","name":"Midpage","url":"https://app.midpage.ai"},"inLanguage":"en","keywords":"legal, opinion, document, research, midpage, Tyrone Ragland v. S. Lee, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Tyrone Ragland v. S. Lee, 687 F. App'x 270 (4th Cir. 2017)","isAccessibleForFree":true,"isFamilyFriendly":true}34:T52f,

*1 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tyrone Ragland, Appellant Pro Se. Jessica Leigh Berdichevsky, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tyrone Ragland appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ragland v. Lee , No. 1:15-cv-01663-LMB-TCB (E.D. Va. Nov. 3, 2016). 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