Land v. Beck

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 27, 2002
Docket02-6679
StatusUnpublished

This text of Land v. Beck (Land v. Beck) 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.

Bluebook
Land v. Beck, (4th Cir. 2002).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6679

BILLY LAND,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

THEODIS BECK, Secretary of Correction; JAMES B. BENNETT, Director of Prisons; GRADY J. HAYNES, Superintendent of Warren Correctional; HATTIE B. PIMPONG, Chief Disciplinary Hearing Officer; ROBERT TERRY, JR., Hearing Officer; LT. NORWOOD; J. R. JAMES, Lieutenant; T. BROWN, Officer; D. HARDING, Officer; A. PATTERSON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-533-5-BO)

Submitted: June 20, 2002 Decided: June 27, 2002

Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Billy Land, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Billy Land, a Virginia prisoner, appeals the district court’s

order denying his self-styled “motion for hearing.” We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Land claims the district court must conduct a

hearing to determine the constitutionality of a refundable ten

dollar administrative fee imposed upon inmates who file internal

grievances against prison officials. We have already rejected

Land’s claim in a prior opinion. See Land v. Beck, No. 01-7386,

slip op. (4th Cir. Dec. 28, 2001). Therefore, Land’s claim is

barred under principles of res judicata. Accordingly, we affirm

the judgment of the district court. 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Land v. Beck, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/land-v-beck-ca4-2002.