Mark Barnes v. Nancy Parr

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cv-00160-LMB-TCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998633727]. Mailed to: Barnes. [11-6454]

Download PDF
Appeal: 11-6454 Document: 19 Date Filed: 07/18/2011 Page: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6454 MARK A. BARNES, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. NANCY PARR, Head Commonwealth Attorney; DAVID J. WHITTED, Deputy Commonwealth Attorney; D. J. GEIGER, Deputy Executive Director Virginia Indigent Defense Commission, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:11-cv-00160-LMB-TCB) Submitted: July 13, 2011 Before DAVIS and Circuit Judge. WYNN, Decided: Circuit Judges, and July 18, 2011 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark A. Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. Jeff W. Rosen, COWARD, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees. PENDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. & Appeal: 11-6454 Document: 19 Date Filed: 07/18/2011 Page: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Mark A. Barnes 42 appeals U.S.C. § 1983 the district (2006) court’s complaint order dismissing his without prejudice. The district court dismissed the complaint pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994), finding that the complaint challenges the fact or duration of Barnes’ confinement and thus should have been raised in a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 following exhaustion of state remedies. the record and find no reversible error. We have reviewed Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Barnes v. Parr, No. 1:11-cv-00160-LMB-TCB (E.D. Va. Mar. 22, 2011). 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

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?