Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Campbell v. Johnson, 07-6266 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-6266 Visitors: 21
Filed: Aug. 28, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6266 MICHAEL JOSEPH CAMPBELL, and all prisoners similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; Mrs. HELEN F. FEHEY, Chairwoman, Virginia Parole Board; LIEUTENANT HARRISON, Building Supervisor, Sussex I State Prison; LIEUTENANT BRONSON, Building Supervisor, Sussex I State Prison; CHIEF COUNSELOR WILLIAMS, Sussex I State Prison; DOCTOR EMRAN, Medical Doctor, Susse
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6266 MICHAEL JOSEPH CAMPBELL, and all prisoners similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; Mrs. HELEN F. FEHEY, Chairwoman, Virginia Parole Board; LIEUTENANT HARRISON, Building Supervisor, Sussex I State Prison; LIEUTENANT BRONSON, Building Supervisor, Sussex I State Prison; CHIEF COUNSELOR WILLIAMS, Sussex I State Prison; DOCTOR EMRAN, Medical Doctor, Sussex I State Prison, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-00393-TSE-BR) Submitted: August 23, 2007 Decided: August 28, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Joseph Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Joseph Campbell 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 as modified to reflect dismissal without prejudice of Campbell’s parole denial claim. Campbell v. Johnson, No. 1:06-cv-00393-TSE-BR (Dec. 11, 2006 & Jan. 29, 2007). 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 AS MODIFIED - 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