Filed: Mar. 16, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7253 MICHAEL ANTONIO LIVERMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; DORIS L. EWING, Court Legal, Manager; HELEN FAHEY, Virginia Parole Board, Chairman Manager, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:07-cv-00344-JRS) Submitted: November 5, 2008 Decided: M
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7253 MICHAEL ANTONIO LIVERMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; DORIS L. EWING, Court Legal, Manager; HELEN FAHEY, Virginia Parole Board, Chairman Manager, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:07-cv-00344-JRS) Submitted: November 5, 2008 Decided: Ma..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7253 MICHAEL ANTONIO LIVERMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; DORIS L. EWING, Court Legal, Manager; HELEN FAHEY, Virginia Parole Board, Chairman Manager, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:07-cv-00344-JRS) Submitted: November 5, 2008 Decided: March 16, 2009 Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Antonio Liverman, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Antonio Liverman appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s final order. See Liverman v. Johnson, No. 3:07-cv-00344-JRS (E.D. Va. June 12, 2008). 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
