Harvey v. Johnson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 2, 2004
• Docket: 04-6156
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6156

NATHANIEL LEE HARVEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; GARY WATERS, Sheriff; SENTENCING JUDGE, Portsmouth, Virginia Civil Center 1982; VON L. PIERSALL, JR., Convicting Judge; SCOTT EHRENWORTH, Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney; STEPHEN R. MCCULLOUGH, Virginia Assistant Attorney General,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 04-6265

GARY WATERS, Portsmouth, Virginia Sheriff; VON L. PIERSALL, JR., Judge; SCOTT EHRENWORTH, Prosecutor; R. M. HOLLEY, Detective; C. E. HOLLOWOOD, Detective,

Defendants - Appellees. No. 04-6314

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections; GARY WATER, Sheriff, Portsmouth, Virginia,

No. 04-6315

SCOTT EHRENWORTH, Prosecutor; C. E. HOLBWOOD, Officer-Jail; C. E. HOLLOWOOD, Detective,

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-885-2; CA-04-29-2; CA-04-27-2; CA-04-28-2)

Submitted: March 25, 2004 Decided: April 2, 2004

Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

- 2 - Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathaniel Lee Harvey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

- 3 - PER CURIAM:

Nathaniel Lee Harvey appeals the district court’s orders

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaints. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Harvey v.

Johnson, No. CA-03-885-2 (E.D. Va. Jan. 5, 2004); Harvey v. Waters,

No. CA-04-29-2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 3, 2004); Harvey v. Johnson, No. CA-

04-27-2 (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 3, 2004 & entered Feb. 4, 2004);

Harvey v. Ehrenworth, No. CA-04-28-2 (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 3, 2004

& entered Feb. 4, 2004). We deny Harvey’s motions for preparation

of transcripts, for oral argument, and for review of the records in

the clerk’s office. 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

- 4 -