Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Harris v. Angelone, 00-6052 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-6052 Visitors: 2
Filed: Apr. 21, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6052 GARY LEE HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections; A. D. ROBERTSON, Warden of Nottoway Correctional Center; T. C. ESTEP, Assistant Warden of Programs; LOUIS B. CEI, Chairman of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Central Classification Board; PATRICK GURNEY, Former Manager of the Classi- fication and Records Section of the Department of Corrections
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6052 GARY LEE HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections; A. D. ROBERTSON, Warden of Nottoway Correctional Center; T. C. ESTEP, Assistant Warden of Programs; LOUIS B. CEI, Chairman of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Central Classification Board; PATRICK GURNEY, Former Manager of the Classi- fication and Records Section of the Department of Corrections; JOHN DOE, Manager of the Clas- sification Board; GENE JOHNSON, Assistant Director of the Virginia Department of Correc- tions; JOHN R. ALDERMAN, Chairman of the Vir- ginia Parole Board, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-99-711-AM) Submitted: April 13, 2000 Decided: April 21, 2000 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Lee Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Gary Lee Harris, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Harris v. Angelone, No. CA-99-711-AM (E.D. Va. Dec. 17, 1999). 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. DISMISSED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer