Filed: Jul. 16, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6479 TALIB D. SHABAZZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HAMLETT, Lieutenant; SHIFLETT, Unit Manager; SUSSEX II STATE PRISON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-03-192-3) Submitted: June 18, 2004 Decided: July 16, 2004 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6479 TALIB D. SHABAZZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HAMLETT, Lieutenant; SHIFLETT, Unit Manager; SUSSEX II STATE PRISON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-03-192-3) Submitted: June 18, 2004 Decided: July 16, 2004 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam o..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6479 TALIB D. SHABAZZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HAMLETT, Lieutenant; SHIFLETT, Unit Manager; SUSSEX II STATE PRISON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-03-192-3) Submitted: June 18, 2004 Decided: July 16, 2004 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Talib D. Shabazz, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Talib D. Shabazz 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 on the reasoning of the district court. See Shabazz v. Hamlett, No. CA-03-192-3 (E.D. Va. Feb. 10, 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 -
