Filed: Jan. 22, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7559 JOSEPH M. FULTON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. WILLIAM W. MUSE, Chairman, Virginia Parole Board, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:11-cv-01214-JCC-JFA) Submitted: January 17, 2013 Decided: January 22, 2013 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7559 JOSEPH M. FULTON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. WILLIAM W. MUSE, Chairman, Virginia Parole Board, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:11-cv-01214-JCC-JFA) Submitted: January 17, 2013 Decided: January 22, 2013 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7559 JOSEPH M. FULTON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. WILLIAM W. MUSE, Chairman, Virginia Parole Board, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:11-cv-01214-JCC-JFA) Submitted: January 17, 2013 Decided: January 22, 2013 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph M. Fulton, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Joseph M. Fulton appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. 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 2
