Henry Edward Gardner v. HELEN F. FAHEY, Chairperson of the Virginia Parole Board, sued in her official capacity

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6208
HENRY EDWARD GARDNER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
HELEN F. FAHEY, Chairperson of the Virginia
Parole Board, sued in her official capacity;
DAVID HARKER, Vice-Chairman of the Virginia
Parole Board, sued in his official capacity;
CAROLE SIEVERS, Member of the Virginia Parole
Board, sued in her official capacity; HERBERT
COULTON, Member of the Virginia Parole Board,
sued in his official capacity; MICHAEL HAWES,
Member of the Virginia Parole Board, sued in
his official capacity; ALTON BASKERVILLE,
Warden, Powhatan Correctional Center, sued in
his official capacity; TERRY MARSH, Virginia
Department of Corrections, sued in her
official capacity; THERESA WARD, Detainer
Coordinator, Virginia Department of
Corrections, sued in her official capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate
Judge. (CA-04-170)
Submitted: June 8, 2005 Decided: June 28, 2005
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
Brent A. Jackson, JACKSON LAW GROUP, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellant. Judith W. Jagdmann, Attorney General, Richard C.
Vorhis, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

*This case was decided by the magistrate judge upon consent of
the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (2000).
- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Henry Edward Gardner appeals the magistrate judge’s order
granting summary judgment to the Defendants and dismissing his
civil rights complaint. * We have reviewed the record and the
magistrate judge’s memorandum opinion and affirm on the reasoning
of the magistrate judge. See Gardner v. Fahey, No. CA-04-170 (E.D.
Va. Jan. 5, 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

-- 3 of 3 --