Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Moore v. Fahey, 04-7263 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-7263 Visitors: 14
Filed: Jan. 10, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7263 CARROLL LEE MOORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HELEN F. FAHEY, parole board member; DAVID HARKER, parole board member; CAROL ANN SIEVERS, parole board member, Defendants - Appellees. No. 04-7329 CARROLL LEE MOORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HELEN F. FAHEY, parole board member; DAVID HARKER, parole board member; CAROL ANN SIEVERS, parole board member, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7263 CARROLL LEE MOORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HELEN F. FAHEY, parole board member; DAVID HARKER, parole board member; CAROL ANN SIEVERS, parole board member, Defendants - Appellees. No. 04-7329 CARROLL LEE MOORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HELEN F. FAHEY, parole board member; DAVID HARKER, parole board member; CAROL ANN SIEVERS, parole board member, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-03-562) Submitted: December 15, 2004 Decided: January 10, 2005 Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carroll Lee Moore, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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). - 2 - PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Carroll Lee Moore appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm both orders on the reasoning of the district court. See Moore v. Fahey, No. CA-03-562 (E.D. Va. July 9 and July 30, 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 - 3 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer