Filed: Aug. 20, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7051 LARRY L. STEWART, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HARVEY BRYANT, Commonwealth Attorney, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, District Judge. (CA-04-606-1) Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 20, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry L. Stewart,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7051 LARRY L. STEWART, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HARVEY BRYANT, Commonwealth Attorney, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, District Judge. (CA-04-606-1) Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 20, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry L. Stewart, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7051
LARRY L. STEWART,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
HARVEY BRYANT, Commonwealth Attorney,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, District
Judge. (CA-04-606-1)
Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 20, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry L. Stewart, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Larry L. Stewart appeals the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action as
not cognizable under Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477 (1994). We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. See Stewart v. Bryant, No. CA-04-606-1 (E.D. Va. June 7,
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 -