Filed: Feb. 01, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2124 GARY KEVIN MATTIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; MARK R. WARNER, Governor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, District Judge. (CA-03-75) Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 1, 2005 Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2124 GARY KEVIN MATTIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; MARK R. WARNER, Governor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, District Judge. (CA-03-75) Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 1, 2005 Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by u..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2124 GARY KEVIN MATTIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; MARK R. WARNER, Governor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, District Judge. (CA-03-75) Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 1, 2005 Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Kevin Mattis, Appellant Pro Se. Martha Murphey Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Gary Kevin Mattis appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action. Our review of the record and the district court’s opinion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Mattis v. Virginia, No. CA-03-75 (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 29, 2004). We deny Mattis’ motion to strike and 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 -
