Filed: Dec. 17, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7166 TIMOTHY L. GARLAND, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HELEN FAHEY, Chairperson of VA Parole Board, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:08-cv-00163-RAJ-FBS) Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 17, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tim
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7166 TIMOTHY L. GARLAND, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HELEN FAHEY, Chairperson of VA Parole Board, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:08-cv-00163-RAJ-FBS) Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 17, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timo..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7166 TIMOTHY L. GARLAND, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HELEN FAHEY, Chairperson of VA Parole Board, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:08-cv-00163-RAJ-FBS) Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 17, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy L. Garland, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Timothy L. Garland appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Garland v. Fahey, No. 2:08-cv-00163-RAJ-FBS (E.D. Va. June 16, 2008). 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
