Filed: Feb. 15, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7493 PAUL M. OMAR, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH M. BROOKS, Warden; CAROLYN D. DUNSON, Case Manager; K. M. WHITE, Regional Director; HARRELL WATTS; HARRIS LAPPIN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-04-248) Submitted: February 9, 2005 Decided: February 15, 2005 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7493 PAUL M. OMAR, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH M. BROOKS, Warden; CAROLYN D. DUNSON, Case Manager; K. M. WHITE, Regional Director; HARRELL WATTS; HARRIS LAPPIN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-04-248) Submitted: February 9, 2005 Decided: February 15, 2005 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD,..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7493 PAUL M. OMAR, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH M. BROOKS, Warden; CAROLYN D. DUNSON, Case Manager; K. M. WHITE, Regional Director; HARRELL WATTS; HARRIS LAPPIN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-04-248) Submitted: February 9, 2005 Decided: February 15, 2005 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul M. Omar, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Paul M. Omar appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and 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 Omar v. Brooks, No. CA-04-248 (E.D. Va. Aug. 30, 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 -
