Filed: Dec. 11, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7383 ROBERT L. NELSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus E. MONTGOMERY TUCKER, Chairman, Virginia Parole Board, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-1143-AM) Submitted: November 20, 1997 Decided: December 11, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7383 ROBERT L. NELSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus E. MONTGOMERY TUCKER, Chairman, Virginia Parole Board, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-1143-AM) Submitted: November 20, 1997 Decided: December 11, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7383 ROBERT L. NELSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus E. MONTGOMERY TUCKER, Chairman, Virginia Parole Board, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-1143-AM) Submitted: November 20, 1997 Decided: December 11, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert L. Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying Appel- lant's motion for reconsideration of the district court's order dismissing without prejudice Appellant's 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) action. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opin- ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Nelson v. Tucker, No. CA-97-1143- AM (E.D. Va. Sept. 4, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
