Filed: Apr. 23, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6342 MICHAEL DEWAYNE SHORT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MRS. GONZALES-KOZEN; JOSEPH BROOKS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-1610-3-AM) Submitted: April 15, 2004 Decided: April 23, 2004 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublis
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6342 MICHAEL DEWAYNE SHORT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MRS. GONZALES-KOZEN; JOSEPH BROOKS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-1610-3-AM) Submitted: April 15, 2004 Decided: April 23, 2004 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublish..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6342 MICHAEL DEWAYNE SHORT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MRS. GONZALES-KOZEN; JOSEPH BROOKS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-1610-3-AM) Submitted: April 15, 2004 Decided: April 23, 2004 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Dewayne Short, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael Dewayne Short appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000) for failing to state a claim on which relief may be granted. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Short v. Gonzales-Kozen, No. CA-03-1610-3-AM (E.D. Va. Feb. 5, 2004). 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 -
