Filed: May 29, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6504 LACY HUGHES JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SARGEANT SHREVE, Correctional Officer, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (CA-03-202-2) Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 29, 2003 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6504 LACY HUGHES JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SARGEANT SHREVE, Correctional Officer, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (CA-03-202-2) Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 29, 2003 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6504 LACY HUGHES JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SARGEANT SHREVE, Correctional Officer, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (CA-03-202-2) Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 29, 2003 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lacy Hughes Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Lacy Hughes Johnson appeals the district court’s order and judgment dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (2000) his civil rights complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Johnson v. Shreve, No. CA-03-202-2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 18, 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
