Filed: Dec. 21, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7224 JAMES JUNIOR ALLEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAVID ROBINSON, Warden; HELEN F. FAHEY, Chairwoman of Virginia Parole Board; JAMES L. JENKINS, JR.; MS. RUSSELL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-03-27) Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 21, 2004 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circ
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7224 JAMES JUNIOR ALLEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAVID ROBINSON, Warden; HELEN F. FAHEY, Chairwoman of Virginia Parole Board; JAMES L. JENKINS, JR.; MS. RUSSELL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-03-27) Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 21, 2004 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circu..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7224 JAMES JUNIOR ALLEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAVID ROBINSON, Warden; HELEN F. FAHEY, Chairwoman of Virginia Parole Board; JAMES L. JENKINS, JR.; MS. RUSSELL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-03-27) Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 21, 2004 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Junior Allen, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James Junior Allen 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 Allen v. Robinson, No. CA-03-27 (E.D. Va. July 2, 2004). 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 -
