Beard v. Tuell
This text of Beard v. Tuell (Beard v. Tuell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7476
WILLIAM FERNANDO BEARD,
Plaintiff - Appellant, versus
DORTHY TUELL, Manager; HELEN F. FAHEY, Chairwoman; DAVID N. HARKER; CAROL ANN SIEVERS,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-04-764-2)
Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: February 3, 2006
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Fernando Beard, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:
William Fernando Beard appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Beard v.
Tuell, No. CA-04-764-2 (E.D. Va. Aug. 17, 2005). 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 -
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Beard v. Tuell, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beard-v-tuell-ca4-2006.