Jarvis v. US Dept of Justice

Filing 920071026


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7042 DOUGLAS ALAN JARVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; HARRELL WATTS, Administrator, National Inmate Appeals; KIMBERLY M. WHITE, Regional Director MidAtlantic Region; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISON; FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION - PETERSBURG; VANESSA P. ADAMS, Warden; JOSEPH M. BROOKS, Warden; KAREN F. HOGSTEN, Assistant Warden; WALTER VEREEN, Captain; STEVEN DESROCHERS, Lieutenant; WADE MORE, Case Management Coordinator; PATRICK SIMON, Inmate System Management; DEBORAH GONZALEZ-KOZEN, Unit Manager; RODNEY WYRICK, Unit Manager; SAM BANKS, Case Manager; ANTHONY HARDING, Case Manager; MILTON M. SPEIGHTS, Counselor; JOHN DOES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:07-cv-00168-RAJ) Submitted: October 18, 2007 Decided: October 26, 2007 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas Alan Jarvis, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Douglas Alan Jarvis appeals the district court's orders dismissing his civil complaint for failure to state a claim, denying his motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his complaint, and denying his motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jarvis v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, No. 2:07-cv- 00168-RAJ (E.D. Va. May 25, 2007; June 21, 2007 & July 3, 2007). 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 - 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?