Filed: May 21, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6085 PAUL J. ATHEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-00-266-3) Submitted: May 3, 2001 Decided: May 21, 2001 Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed in part and di
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6085 PAUL J. ATHEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-00-266-3) Submitted: May 3, 2001 Decided: May 21, 2001 Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed in part and dis..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6085
PAUL J. ATHEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CA-00-266-3)
Submitted: May 3, 2001 Decided: May 21, 2001
Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Paul J. Athey, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Paul J. Athey appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his complaint challenging the procedures used by the
Virginia Parole Board in deciding to deny him parole, as well as
the denial of parole itself. We have reviewed the record and the
district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. To the
extent that Athey challenged the procedures used by the Virginia
Parole Board, the district court properly construed the action as
one under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000), and we affirm the
denial of relief on the reasoning of the district court. Athey v.
Director of Virginia Dep’t of Corrections, No. CA-00-266-3 (E.D.
Va. Dec. 8, 2000). To the extent that Athey’s claims sound in
habeas corpus, he has not shown that the denial of parole was un-
constitutional in any respect. Accordingly, although we grant leave
to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny a certificate of appealabil-
ity and dismiss as to this claim. 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;
DISMISSED IN PART
2