ROBERTS v. VANN (2018)

Anthony Roberts appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to Defendants 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.^* Roberts v. Vann, No. 1:17-cv-00049-CMH-MSN (E.D. Va. filed Oct. 25, 2017 & entered Oct. 27, 2017). We deny Roberts’ motion to appoint counsel and 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

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   To the extent Roberts argues on appeal that Defendants violated his equal protection rights by treating him differently than other inmates during the disciplinary proceeding, we conclude that Roberts waived appellate review of this claim by failing to allege it in his complaint. See Pornomo v. United States, 814 F.3d 681, 686 (4th Cir. 2016).

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.