Filed: Nov. 10, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7170 WAYMOND L. JENKINS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES S. GILMORE, III, Governor of Virginia; JOHN R. ALDERMAN, Chairman, Virginia Parole Board, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-99-241-3) Submitted: November 4, 1999 Decided: November 10, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7170 WAYMOND L. JENKINS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES S. GILMORE, III, Governor of Virginia; JOHN R. ALDERMAN, Chairman, Virginia Parole Board, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-99-241-3) Submitted: November 4, 1999 Decided: November 10, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7170 WAYMOND L. JENKINS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES S. GILMORE, III, Governor of Virginia; JOHN R. ALDERMAN, Chairman, Virginia Parole Board, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-99-241-3) Submitted: November 4, 1999 Decided: November 10, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Waymond L. Jenkins, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Waymond L. Jenkins appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Jenkins v. Gilmore, No. CA-99-241-3 (E.D. Va. Aug. 19, 1999). 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 2
