1Starr Dalton v. WV Parole Board

Filing 920100222

Download PDF
Filed: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT February 22, 2010 No. 09-7694 (2:08-cv-01216) 1STARR DALTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WV PAROLE BOARD; CHRISTIE LOVE; PEGGY J. POPE; BRENDA J. STUCKEY; JOHN DOE #1; JOHN DOE #2, Defendants - Appellees. O R D E R The court amends its opinion filed January 27, 2010, as follows: On the cover sheet, the panel information is corrected to read: "Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges." For the Court ­ By Direction /s/ Patricia S. Connor Clerk UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7694 1STARR DALTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WV PAROLE BOARD; CHRISTIE LOVE; PEGGY J. POPE; BRENDA J. STUCKEY; JOHN DOE #1; JOHN DOE #2, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief District Judge. (2:08-cv-01216) Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 27, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 1Starr Dalton, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher James Sears, SHUMAN, MCCUSKEY & SLICER, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: 1Starr Dalton appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. we affirm for W. the reasons Bd., stated No. with are and by the Accordingly, court. Va. the the the district Dalton v. Aug. 25, facts Va. Parole We 2:08-cv-01216 oral argument (S.D.W. because in aid 2009). legal before dispense and contentions the court adequately argument presented not materials would decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

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?