Filed: Nov. 18, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7110 SOLOMON HAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GARY W. WATERS, Sheriff; CYNTHIA P. MORRISON, Clerk; CAPTAIN NAER, Classification Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-466-2) Submitted: November 6, 2003 Decided: November 18, 2003 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affir
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7110 SOLOMON HAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GARY W. WATERS, Sheriff; CYNTHIA P. MORRISON, Clerk; CAPTAIN NAER, Classification Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-466-2) Submitted: November 6, 2003 Decided: November 18, 2003 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirm..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7110 SOLOMON HAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GARY W. WATERS, Sheriff; CYNTHIA P. MORRISON, Clerk; CAPTAIN NAER, Classification Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-466-2) Submitted: November 6, 2003 Decided: November 18, 2003 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Soloman Ham, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Solomon Ham appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Ham v. Waters, No. CA- 03-466-2 (E.D. Va. July 7, 2003). 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
