Filed: Apr. 05, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7824 CORBIN X. MACON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus W. P. ROGERS, Regional Director, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:05-cv-00358) Submitted: March 29, 2007 Decided: April 5, 2007 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Corbin X. Macon, Appellant Pro
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7824 CORBIN X. MACON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus W. P. ROGERS, Regional Director, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:05-cv-00358) Submitted: March 29, 2007 Decided: April 5, 2007 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Corbin X. Macon, Appellant Pro ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7824 CORBIN X. MACON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus W. P. ROGERS, Regional Director, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:05-cv-00358) Submitted: March 29, 2007 Decided: April 5, 2007 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Corbin X. Macon, Appellant Pro Se. Banci Enga Tewolde, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Corbin X. Macon 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 for the reasons stated by the district court. Macon v. Rogers, No. 2:05-cv-00358 (E.D. Va. Sept. 21, 2006). 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 -
