Filed: Jun. 17, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6313 WILLIAM A. HARRIS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; PROBATION AND PAROLE, District 24; SALLIE OVERTON AMOS, Parole Officer; JAMES REYNOLDS, III, Chief Parole Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-02-1759-AM) Submitted: June 12, 2003 Dec
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6313 WILLIAM A. HARRIS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; PROBATION AND PAROLE, District 24; SALLIE OVERTON AMOS, Parole Officer; JAMES REYNOLDS, III, Chief Parole Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-02-1759-AM) Submitted: June 12, 2003 Deci..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6313 WILLIAM A. HARRIS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; PROBATION AND PAROLE, District 24; SALLIE OVERTON AMOS, Parole Officer; JAMES REYNOLDS, III, Chief Parole Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-02-1759-AM) Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 17, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William A. Harris, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William A. Harris, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Harris v. Virginia, No. CA-02-1759-AM (E.D. Va. Jan. 6, 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
