Filed: Mar. 31, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6137 MARIO BALLARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHAIRMAN, VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge. (CA-01-235-7) Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 31, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mari
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6137 MARIO BALLARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHAIRMAN, VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge. (CA-01-235-7) Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 31, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mario..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6137 MARIO BALLARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHAIRMAN, VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge. (CA-01-235-7) Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 31, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mario Ballard, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Mario Ballard appeals the magistrate judge’s order denying his motion to amend his complaint in an action that was closed. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. See Ballard v. Chairman, Va. Parole Bd., No. CA-01-235-7 (W.D. Va. Sept. 30, 2002). Ballard’s motion for hearing en banc is 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
