Filed: Jan. 23, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7459 CORBIN X. MACON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; DONALD R. GUILLORY, Director, Virginia Correctional Enterprises, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:06-cv-00402-RAJ) Submitted: January 18, 2007 Decided: January 23, 2007 Before WILKINSON, TRA
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7459 CORBIN X. MACON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; DONALD R. GUILLORY, Director, Virginia Correctional Enterprises, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:06-cv-00402-RAJ) Submitted: January 18, 2007 Decided: January 23, 2007 Before WILKINSON, TRAX..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7459
CORBIN X. MACON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of
Corrections; DONALD R. GUILLORY, Director,
Virginia Correctional Enterprises,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:06-cv-00402-RAJ)
Submitted: January 18, 2007 Decided: January 23, 2007
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Corbin X. Macon, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Corbin X. Macon appeals from the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint 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. Macon v. Johnson, No. 2:06-cv-00402-RAJ (E.D.
Va. July 27, 2006). To the extent that Macon seeks to raise new
claims in his informal brief, these claim are not properly before
this court. See Muth v. United States,
1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.
1993). 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 -