Filed: Feb. 03, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7687 BARRY L. HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN ZIMMERMAN, Bailiff/Deputy; VINCENT GIVENS, Lieutenant/Supervisor; DWIGHT GAY, Sergeant/Deputy, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-497-2) Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: February 3, 2006 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit J
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7687 BARRY L. HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN ZIMMERMAN, Bailiff/Deputy; VINCENT GIVENS, Lieutenant/Supervisor; DWIGHT GAY, Sergeant/Deputy, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-497-2) Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: February 3, 2006 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Ju..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7687 BARRY L. HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN ZIMMERMAN, Bailiff/Deputy; VINCENT GIVENS, Lieutenant/Supervisor; DWIGHT GAY, Sergeant/Deputy, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-497-2) Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: February 3, 2006 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Barry L. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Barry L. Harris appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2000), for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Harris v. Zimmerman, No. CA-05-497-2 (E.D. Va. Oct. 5, 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 -
