The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
01-6191•Johnny R. Huff v. C. D. LARSEN, Warden, Lunenburg Correctional Center
01-6191Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJun 8, 2001
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6191
JOHNNY R. HUFF,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
C. D. LARSEN, Warden, Lunenburg Correctional
Center; ICC BOARD AND SECURITY; ASSISTANT WAR-
DEN WALLACE; GARY GRAHAM, Operations Officer;
DAVID GRAHAM, Assistant Operations Officer;
COUNSELOR WILLIAMS; ASSISTANT WARDEN WALLACE;
SECURITY LIEUTENANT MARTIN; CORRECTIONAL OFFI-
CER HAMON; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WOODSON; COR-
RECTIONAL OFFICER FERGUSON; CORRECTIONAL OF-
FICER FORD; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER THORTON;
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BOISE; NURSE BLACK,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.
(CA-99-1754-2)
Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 8, 2001
Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Johnny R. Huff, Appellant Pro Se.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Johnny R. Huff appeals the district court’s order denying re-
lief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of
the district court. See Huff v. Larsen, No. CA-99-1754-2 (E.D. Va.
Jan. 16, 2001). Huff’s pending motions for release from isolation,
for an injunction, to overturn a determination of the Department of
Corrections, and for prospective injunctive relief are denied. 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.