Filed: Mar. 17, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7686 MICHAEL LYNN TURNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WILLIAM M. MUSE, Chairman; HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director; EVERET SIMMS, Counselor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:14-cv-01060-AJT-TCB) Submitted: March 12, 2015 Decided: March 17, 2015 Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7686 MICHAEL LYNN TURNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WILLIAM M. MUSE, Chairman; HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director; EVERET SIMMS, Counselor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:14-cv-01060-AJT-TCB) Submitted: March 12, 2015 Decided: March 17, 2015 Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by u..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7686
MICHAEL LYNN TURNER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM M. MUSE, Chairman; HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director;
EVERET SIMMS, Counselor,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga,
District Judge. (1:14-cv-01060-AJT-TCB)
Submitted: March 12, 2015 Decided: March 17, 2015
Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Lynn Turner, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Lynn Turner appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Turner v. Muse, No. 1:14-cv-01060-AJT-
TCB (E.D. Va. Oct. 27, 2014). 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
2