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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?