Filed: Mar. 05, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7825 MONTY E. WRIGHT, a/k/a Monty E. Hamlor, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WILLIAM W. MUSE, Chairman; VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:13-cv-00344-JCT-RSB) Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 5, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7825 MONTY E. WRIGHT, a/k/a Monty E. Hamlor, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WILLIAM W. MUSE, Chairman; VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:13-cv-00344-JCT-RSB) Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 5, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished p..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7825
MONTY E. WRIGHT, a/k/a Monty E. Hamlor,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM W. MUSE, Chairman; VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior
District Judge. (7:13-cv-00344-JCT-RSB)
Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 5, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Monty Wright, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Monty E. Wright appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint without
prejudice as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)
(2012). * We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
*
We conclude that the order is final and appealable as no
amendment to the complaint could cure the defects identified by
the district court. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers
Local Union 392,
10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).
2