Filed: Feb. 13, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7287 HAROLD E. ANDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EDDIE PEARSON, in his individual capacity; LARRY HUFFMAN, Regional Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1292-7) Submitted: January 30, 2004
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7287 HAROLD E. ANDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EDDIE PEARSON, in his individual capacity; LARRY HUFFMAN, Regional Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1292-7) Submitted: January 30, 2004 ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7287 HAROLD E. ANDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EDDIE PEARSON, in his individual capacity; LARRY HUFFMAN, Regional Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1292-7) Submitted: January 30, 2004 Decided: February 13, 2004 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel M. Schember, GAFFNEY & SCHEMBER, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General, Mark R. Davis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Harold E. Anderson 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 Anderson v. Pearson, No. CA-02-1292-7 (W.D. Va. July 21, 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 -