Filed: May 04, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7969 LAWRENCE E. GRIFFIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARK WARNER, Governor; ROBERT C. SCOTT, Congressman; OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; N. L. CONNOR, Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-03-515) Submitted: April 29,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7969 LAWRENCE E. GRIFFIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARK WARNER, Governor; ROBERT C. SCOTT, Congressman; OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; N. L. CONNOR, Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-03-515) Submitted: April 29, 2..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7969 LAWRENCE E. GRIFFIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARK WARNER, Governor; ROBERT C. SCOTT, Congressman; OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; N. L. CONNOR, Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-03-515) Submitted: April 29, 2004 Decided: May 4, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence E. Griffin, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Lawrence E. Griffin appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Griffin v. Warner, No. CA-03-515 (E.D. Va. Dec. 8, 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. DISMISSED - 2 -