Filed: Dec. 07, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7192 ANTHONY G. WRIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HELEN F. FAHEY, Chairwoman, Virginia Parole Board; GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-81-1) Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 7, 2005 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and G
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7192 ANTHONY G. WRIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HELEN F. FAHEY, Chairwoman, Virginia Parole Board; GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-81-1) Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 7, 2005 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GR..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7192 ANTHONY G. WRIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HELEN F. FAHEY, Chairwoman, Virginia Parole Board; GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-81-1) Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 7, 2005 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony G. Wright, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Anthony G. Wright 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 on the reasoning of the district court. See Wright v. Fahey, No. CA-05-81-1 (E.D. Va. July 6, 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 - 2 -
