Filed: Aug. 19, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6909 BERNARDO FIGUEROA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LIEUTENANT GRANT, Sussex I State Prison; G. COOK, Sussex I State Prison, Defendants - Appellees, and GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-03-609) Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 19, 2004 Bef
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6909 BERNARDO FIGUEROA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LIEUTENANT GRANT, Sussex I State Prison; G. COOK, Sussex I State Prison, Defendants - Appellees, and GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-03-609) Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 19, 2004 Befo..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6909 BERNARDO FIGUEROA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LIEUTENANT GRANT, Sussex I State Prison; G. COOK, Sussex I State Prison, Defendants - Appellees, and GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-03-609) Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 19, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernardo Figueroa, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Bernardo Figueroa 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 Figueroa v. Grant, No. CA-03-609 (E.D. Va. May 14, 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 - 3 -
