Amberger v. Johnson

Filing 920061103

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6664 DAVID AMBERGER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections; JOHN JABE, Deputy Director of Operations Virginia Department of Corrections; LARRY HUFFMAN, Regional Director of Virginia Department of Corrections; LARRY W. JARVIS, Warden of Bland Correctional Center; VIRGINIA BANDY, Institutional Operations Administrator of Bland Correctional Center; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER DOE, Bland Correctional Center; JANE DOE, Correctional Officer Bland Correctional Center, 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-00162-jlk) Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 3, 2006 Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.* Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 46(d) (2000). * David Amberger, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: David Amberger appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint. the record and find no reversible error. We have reviewed Accordingly, we grant Amberger's motion to file supplemental pleadings and documents, deny Amberger's motion for the appointment of counsel, deny his motion for a temporary restraining order, and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Amberger v. Johnson, No. We dispense with oral 7:06-cv-00162-jlk (W.D. Va. Apr. 3, 2006). 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 - 3 -

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?