UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7754
BOBBY EUGENE RODDY, a/k/a Running Cougar,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA; OFFICE OF THE
GOVERNOR; MARY JO THOMPSON; JIM RUBENSTEIN; M.
H. BAUSO; D. L. STAFFORD; WILLIAM FOX; TONY
LEMASTERS; DON SPRINGSTON; DAN KIMBLE;
WILLIAM D. HALE; BARBARA RENNER; KENT HOBBS,
Reverend; ROBERT ADAMS; DENNIS MUELLER; DUANE
MUNDAY; SUSAN WADE; JOE CARROLL; MICHAEL
HENTHORN; JANE DOE; JOHN DOE; JAELL FULTON;
CORRECTIVE MEDICAL SERVICES; DIANE SHINGLER;
KAROL PAYNE; VICKIE CAIN; TAMMY HARLAN;
PATRICK MIRANDY; SHEILA RAMSEY; JACK
STALLINGS; MISTY ADAMS; CAPTAIN ANDERSON; KATY
PRATT,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,
District Judge. (5:05-cv-00170-FPS)
Submitted: March 30, 2007 Decided: April 16, 2007
Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Bobby Eugene Roddy, Appellant Pro Se. Charles R. Bailey, Billie Jo
Streyle, Jason A. Winnell, BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC, Charleston, West
Virginia; Virginia Grottendieck Lanham, South Charleston, West
Virginia; John A. Hoyer, STATE POLICE LEGAL COUNSEL, South
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Bobby Eugene Roddy appeals the district court’s order
accepting in part the recommendations of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. Roddy
raises three issues on appeal: (1) that his legal mail was
improperly opened; (2) that the West Virginia Department of
Corrections Policy Directive 503.00 is unconstitutional; and
(3) that his free exercise of religion claim was improperly
dismissed. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error for the first two issues. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Roddy v. West Virginia, No.
5:05-cv-00170-FPS (N.D. W. Va. Sept. 21, 2006). For Roddy’s third
issue,* however, we vacate and remand in light of the Supreme
Court’s recent opinion in Jones v. Bock, ___U.S.___, 127 S. Ct. 910
(2007). 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED
*
The district court described this claim as the “free exercise
of religion claim” (R. 54 at 10) and dismissed the claim sua sponte
for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
- 3 -