Filed: Sep. 03, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6544 CHARLES ROBERT MORRIS, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of D.D.C.; WARDEN OF COFFEE WOOD; COFFEE WOOD MEDICAL STAFF, Medical Department, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:14-cv-00022-RBS-DEM) Submitted: August 28, 2014 Decided: September 3, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KI
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6544 CHARLES ROBERT MORRIS, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of D.D.C.; WARDEN OF COFFEE WOOD; COFFEE WOOD MEDICAL STAFF, Medical Department, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:14-cv-00022-RBS-DEM) Submitted: August 28, 2014 Decided: September 3, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KIN..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6544
CHARLES ROBERT MORRIS, III,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of D.D.C.; WARDEN OF COFFEE WOOD;
COFFEE WOOD MEDICAL STAFF, Medical Department,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:14-cv-00022-RBS-DEM)
Submitted: August 28, 2014 Decided: September 3, 2014
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Robert Morris, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Robert Morris, III, appeals the district
court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. See Morris v. Clarke,
No. 2:14-cv-00022-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. Mar. 31, 2014). We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2