Filed: Mar. 31, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6175 YOSHEA MAURICE HILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SAM BATTS, Assistant Warden; BETTY ZOLICOFFER, Building Lieutenant; MR. MERRITT, Complex Investigator, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-04-763-2) Submitted: March 24, 2005 Decided: March 31, 2005 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and H
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6175 YOSHEA MAURICE HILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SAM BATTS, Assistant Warden; BETTY ZOLICOFFER, Building Lieutenant; MR. MERRITT, Complex Investigator, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-04-763-2) Submitted: March 24, 2005 Decided: March 31, 2005 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HA..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6175
YOSHEA MAURICE HILL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SAM BATTS, Assistant Warden; BETTY ZOLICOFFER,
Building Lieutenant; MR. MERRITT, Complex
Investigator,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CA-04-763-2)
Submitted: March 24, 2005 Decided: March 31, 2005
Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Yoshea Maurice Hill, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Yoshea Maurice Hill appeals the district court’s orders
dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint
and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. See Hill v. Batts, No.
CA-04-763-2 (E.D. Va. Jan. 6 & Jan. 24, 2005). We deny Hill’s
petition for an injunction. 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 -