Filed: Aug. 24, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6336 JOHN FREDERICK BALLENTINE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-537-3) Submitted: August 18, 2005 Decided: August 24, 2005 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Frederick Ball
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6336 JOHN FREDERICK BALLENTINE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-537-3) Submitted: August 18, 2005 Decided: August 24, 2005 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Frederick Balle..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6336 JOHN FREDERICK BALLENTINE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-537-3) Submitted: August 18, 2005 Decided: August 24, 2005 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Frederick Ballentine, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John Frederick Ballentine appeals the district court’s order accepting a magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and a subsequent order denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Ballentine v. Virginia Parole Bd., No. CA-04-537-3 (E.D. Va. Dec. 6, 2004 & Jan. 26, 2005). 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 -
