Filed: Aug. 15, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6641 GREGORY L. SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD; JAMES L. JENKINS, Chairman; LINDA R. PITMAN, Vice Chairman; CHARLES E. JAMES, SR., Virginia Parole Board Member; KENT A.P. SMITH, Virginia Parole Board Member; CHARLES L. WEDDELL, Virginia Parole Board Member, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr.,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6641 GREGORY L. SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD; JAMES L. JENKINS, Chairman; LINDA R. PITMAN, Vice Chairman; CHARLES E. JAMES, SR., Virginia Parole Board Member; KENT A.P. SMITH, Virginia Parole Board Member; CHARLES L. WEDDELL, Virginia Parole Board Member, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., D..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6641
GREGORY L. SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD; JAMES L. JENKINS,
Chairman; LINDA R. PITMAN, Vice Chairman;
CHARLES E. JAMES, SR., Virginia Parole Board
Member; KENT A.P. SMITH, Virginia Parole Board
Member; CHARLES L. WEDDELL, Virginia Parole
Board Member,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-01-190-2)
Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 15, 2001
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory L. Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Gregory L. Smith appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of
the district court. See Smith v. Virginia Parole Bd., No. CA-01-
190-2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 28, 2001). 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.
AFFIRMED
2