Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Land v. Beck, 02-6679 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6679 Visitors: 7
Filed: Jun. 27, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6679 BILLY LAND, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THEODIS BECK, Secretary of Correction; JAMES B. BENNETT, Director of Prisons; GRADY J. HAYNES, Superintendent of Warren Correctional; HATTIE B. PIMPONG, Chief Disciplinary Hearing Officer; ROBERT TERRY, JR., Hearing Officer; LT. NORWOOD; J. R. JAMES, Lieutenant; T. BROWN, Officer; D. HARDING, Officer; A. PATTERSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6679 BILLY LAND, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THEODIS BECK, Secretary of Correction; JAMES B. BENNETT, Director of Prisons; GRADY J. HAYNES, Superintendent of Warren Correctional; HATTIE B. PIMPONG, Chief Disciplinary Hearing Officer; ROBERT TERRY, JR., Hearing Officer; LT. NORWOOD; J. R. JAMES, Lieutenant; T. BROWN, Officer; D. HARDING, Officer; A. PATTERSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-533-5-BO) Submitted: June 20, 2002 Decided: June 27, 2002 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Billy Land, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Billy Land, a Virginia prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying his self-styled “motion for hearing.” We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Land claims the district court must conduct a hearing to determine the constitutionality of a refundable ten dollar administrative fee imposed upon inmates who file internal grievances against prison officials. We have already rejected Land’s claim in a prior opinion. See Land v. Beck, No. 01-7386, slip op. (4th Cir. Dec. 28, 2001). Therefore, Land’s claim is barred under principles of res judicata. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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