Yowel v. Johnson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: October 26, 2004
• Docket: 04-6862
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6862

HABAKKUK E. BEN YOWEL, a/k/a B. Robinson,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of VA Department of Corrections; MARK WARNER, Governor of Virginia; JERRY KILGORE, Attorney General of Virginia; MARK R. DAVIS, (Present and/or former) Senior Assistant Attorney General of Virginia; R. ANGELONE, (former) Director of Virginia Department of Corrections; JAMES S. GILMORE, III, (former) Governor of Virginia; JOHN HAGAR, (former) Lt. Governor of Virginia; MARK L. EARLY, Attorney General of Virginia; FRED L. FINKBEINER, (Present and/or former) Chairman of Virginia Board of Corrections; R. A. YOUNG, (Present and/or former) Regional Director of Virginia Department of Corrections; L. W. JARVIS, (Present and/or former) Warden of Bland Correctional Center; G. K. WASHINGTON, Warden of Buckingham Correctional Center; W. P. ROGERS, Regional Administrator of Virginia Department of Corrections; ALTON BASKERVILLE, Warden of Powhatan Correctional Center; J. COLIN CAMPBELL, (present and/or former) Judge of the Circuit Court of Bland County; DAVID B. BEACH, (present and/or former) Clerk of VA Supreme Court,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-04-147) Submitted: September 3, 2004 Decided: October 26, 2004

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Habakkuk E. Ben Yowel, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

Habakkuk E. Ben Yowel appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000) for failure to state a claim on which relief

could be granted. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Yowel v. Johnson, No. CA-04-147 (E.D. Va. Apr.

23, 2004). We deny Yowel’s motion for appointment of counsel and

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

- 3 -