Finnell v. Virginia

Fourth Circuit

Finnell v. Virginia

48 F. App'x 473

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 21, 2002·No. No. 02-7119·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Alfred Wayne Finnell appeals the district court’s order summarily dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Insofar as Finnell is attempting to challenge his federal conviction, we find it barred by the rule announced in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). We also find the action barred by the statute of limitations. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985). Accordingly, [474] we affirm. 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Alfred Wayne Finnell appeals the district court’s order summarily dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Insofar as Finnell is attempting to challenge his federal conviction, we find it barred by the rule announced in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). We also find the action barred by the statute of limitations. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985). Accordingly, [474] we affirm. 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.

Finnell v. Virginia, 48 F. App'x 473 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

48 F. App'x 473 (Finnell v. Virginia) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related