Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Robinson v. Fahey, 05-6866 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-6866 Visitors: 22
Filed: Apr. 06, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6866 FRANK A. ROBINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HELEN F. FAHEY, Chairman of the Virginia Parole Board; DAVID HARKER, Vice-Chairman, Virginia Parole Board; CAROL ANN SIEVERS, Member, Virginia Parole Board, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-04-149-3-DGL) Submitted: March 30, 2006 Decided: April 6, 2
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6866 FRANK A. ROBINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HELEN F. FAHEY, Chairman of the Virginia Parole Board; DAVID HARKER, Vice-Chairman, Virginia Parole Board; CAROL ANN SIEVERS, Member, Virginia Parole Board, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-04-149-3-DGL) Submitted: March 30, 2006 Decided: April 6, 2006 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frank A. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Frank A. Robinson appeals the magistrate judge’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm both orders on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. See Robinson v. Fahey, No. CA- 04-149-3-DGL (E.D. Va. April 15 & 21, 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 * The parties consented to jurisdiction of the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). - 2 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer