Filed: May 30, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6200 JULIUS LAWRENCE-BEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HARRELL WATTS; HARLEY G. LAPPIN; MARGARET C. HAMBRICK; J.E. GUNJA; GARY I. REYNOLDS; ROBERT CENDO; THAO NGUYEN; JOSEPH BROOKS; B. KATTA; A. ZAYAS; J. FAJARDO; C. MENDOZA; Y. APONTE- RENFRO; A. BLANKENSHIP; PRAKASH KARANVIR, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, Distric
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6200 JULIUS LAWRENCE-BEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HARRELL WATTS; HARLEY G. LAPPIN; MARGARET C. HAMBRICK; J.E. GUNJA; GARY I. REYNOLDS; ROBERT CENDO; THAO NGUYEN; JOSEPH BROOKS; B. KATTA; A. ZAYAS; J. FAJARDO; C. MENDOZA; Y. APONTE- RENFRO; A. BLANKENSHIP; PRAKASH KARANVIR, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6200 JULIUS LAWRENCE-BEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HARRELL WATTS; HARLEY G. LAPPIN; MARGARET C. HAMBRICK; J.E. GUNJA; GARY I. REYNOLDS; ROBERT CENDO; THAO NGUYEN; JOSEPH BROOKS; B. KATTA; A. ZAYAS; J. FAJARDO; C. MENDOZA; Y. APONTE- RENFRO; A. BLANKENSHIP; PRAKASH KARANVIR, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-02-1753-AM) Submitted: May 20, 2003 Decided: May 30, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Julius Lawrence-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Julius Lawrence-Bey appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Lawrence-Bey v. Watts, No. CA-02-1753-AM (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 6, 2003, and entered Jan. 7, 2003). 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