Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Huff v. Larsen, 01-6191 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6191 Visitors: 21
Filed: Jun. 08, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6191 JOHNNY R. HUFF, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus C. D. LARSEN, Warden, Lunenburg Correctional Center; ICC BOARD AND SECURITY; ASSISTANT WAR- DEN WALLACE; GARY GRAHAM, Operations Officer; DAVID GRAHAM, Assistant Operations Officer; COUNSELOR WILLIAMS; ASSISTANT WARDEN WALLACE; SECURITY LIEUTENANT MARTIN; CORRECTIONAL OFFI- CER HAMON; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WOODSON; COR- RECTIONAL OFFICER FERGUSON; CORRECTIONAL OF- FICER FORD
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6191 JOHNNY R. HUFF, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus C. D. LARSEN, Warden, Lunenburg Correctional Center; ICC BOARD AND SECURITY; ASSISTANT WAR- DEN WALLACE; GARY GRAHAM, Operations Officer; DAVID GRAHAM, Assistant Operations Officer; COUNSELOR WILLIAMS; ASSISTANT WARDEN WALLACE; SECURITY LIEUTENANT MARTIN; CORRECTIONAL OFFI- CER HAMON; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WOODSON; COR- RECTIONAL OFFICER FERGUSON; CORRECTIONAL OF- FICER FORD; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER THORTON; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BOISE; NURSE BLACK, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-99-1754-2) Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 8, 2001 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnny R. Huff, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Johnny R. Huff appeals the district court’s order denying re- lief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Huff v. Larsen, No. CA-99-1754-2 (E.D. Va. Jan. 16, 2001). Huff’s pending motions for release from isolation, for an injunction, to overturn a determination of the Department of Corrections, and for prospective injunctive relief are denied. 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer