Filed: Apr. 05, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7311 LEE S. MYERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; GENE JOHNSON, Director; DAVID ROBINSON, Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:06-cv-00348-JLK) Submitted: March 14, 2007 Decided: April 5, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7311 LEE S. MYERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; GENE JOHNSON, Director; DAVID ROBINSON, Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:06-cv-00348-JLK) Submitted: March 14, 2007 Decided: April 5, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7311 LEE S. MYERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; GENE JOHNSON, Director; DAVID ROBINSON, Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:06-cv-00348-JLK) Submitted: March 14, 2007 Decided: April 5, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lee S. Myers, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lee S. Myers appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Myers v. Va. Dep’t of Corr., No. 7:06-cv-00348-JLK (W.D. Va. July 6, 2006). 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 -
