Gary D. Ward v. ERIC COOKE, Attorney; CIRCUIT COURT OF SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6990
GARY D. WARD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ERIC COOKE, Attorney; CIRCUIT COURT OF SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY,
VIRGINIA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:15-cv-00050-RBS-DEM)
Submitted: November 13, 2015 Decided: November 23, 2015
Before WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary Dwayne Ward, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Gary D. Ward appeals the district court’s order and
judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint
without prejudice for failing to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012). We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially
for the reasons stated by the district court. Ward v. Cooke,
No. 2:15-cv-00050-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. May 27, 2015).
We observe that Ward’s claim that he complied with the
requirements of Va. Code Ann. § 19.2.-327.1 (Supp. 2015), and
yet was denied relief by the Virginia circuit court is
unreviewable by the district court. See Skinner v. Switzer, 562
U.S. 521, 532 (2011). We also conclude that Ward failed to
allege facts showing that Virginia’s statutory procedures for
establishing innocence based on biological testing are
“fundamentally inadequate.” Dist. Att’y’s Office for the Third
Jud. Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 69 (2009) (“Federal courts
may upset a State’s postconviction relief procedures only if
they are fundamentally inadequate to vindicate the substantive
rights provided.”). Finally, Ward failed to state a claim under
§ 1983 regarding an alleged defective jury instruction. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

-- 2 of 3 --

3
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --