Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Williamson v. Angelone, 01-7518 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7518 Visitors: 47
Filed: Jan. 09, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7518 CLAYBURNE SCOTT WILLIAMSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Depart- ment of Corrections; JAMES L. JENKINS, Chair- man, Virginia Parole Board; LINDA R. PITMAN, Vice Chairman, Virginia Parole Board; CHARLES E. JAMES, SR., Member, Virginia Parole Board; KENT A.P. SMITH, Member, Virginia Parole Board; CHARLES L. WADDELL, Member, Virginia Parole Board, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7518 CLAYBURNE SCOTT WILLIAMSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Depart- ment of Corrections; JAMES L. JENKINS, Chair- man, Virginia Parole Board; LINDA R. PITMAN, Vice Chairman, Virginia Parole Board; CHARLES E. JAMES, SR., Member, Virginia Parole Board; KENT A.P. SMITH, Member, Virginia Parole Board; CHARLES L. WADDELL, Member, Virginia Parole Board, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Freidman, District Judge. (CA-01-444-2) Submitted: December 20, 2001 Decided: January 9, 2002 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clayburne Scott Williamson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Clayburne Scott Williamson, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 2000). 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 Williamson v. Angelone, No. CA-01-444-2 (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 8; entered Aug. 9, 2001). 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. 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