Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Davis v. Fahey, 05-6802 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-6802 Visitors: 13
Filed: Nov. 17, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6802 DARRYL MCLACE DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HELEN F. FAHEY, Chairman of the Virginia Parole Board, individual and official capacity; GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, individual and official capacity; DORIS L. EWING, Manager of the Court and Legal Services Unit of the Virginia Department of Corrections, individual and official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the U
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6802 DARRYL MCLACE DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HELEN F. FAHEY, Chairman of the Virginia Parole Board, individual and official capacity; GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, individual and official capacity; DORIS L. EWING, Manager of the Court and Legal Services Unit of the Virginia Department of Corrections, individual and official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-04-607) Submitted: October 31, 2005 Decided: November 17, 2005 Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darryl McLace Davis, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Darryl McLace Davis appeals the order of the magistrate judge* denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. See Davis v. Fahey, No. CA-04-607 (E.D. Va. Apr. 22, 2005). 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 * Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73, the parties consented to jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. - 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