Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Wynn v. Johnson, 05-7723 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-7723 Visitors: 12
Filed: Jun. 28, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7723 OSBORNE WYNN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; HELEN F. FAHEY, Chairman, Virginia Parole Board; DORIS L. EWING, Senior Manager Court and Legal Service, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate Judge. (CA-04-827) Submitted: April 26, 2006 Decided: Jun
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7723 OSBORNE WYNN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; HELEN F. FAHEY, Chairman, Virginia Parole Board; DORIS L. EWING, Senior Manager Court and Legal Service, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate Judge. (CA-04-827) Submitted: April 26, 2006 Decided: June 28, 2006 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Osborne Wynn, Jr., 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Osborne Wynn, Jr., appeals the magistrate judge’s order* dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. See Wynn v. Johnson, No. CA-04-827 (E.D. Va. Oct. 24, 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 * The case was decided by a magistrate judge with the consent of the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000). - 2 -
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