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)
04-7677•Keith Tyrone Johnson v. Helen F. Fahey
04-7677Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitFeb 16, 2005
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7677
KEITH TYRONE JOHNSON; CURTIS A. NORFLEET;
WILLIAM R. SNYDER; JOHN PITTMAN; ROBERT A.
WARD,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
HELEN F. FAHEY; VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD MEMBERS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, District
Judge. (CA-04-1075)
Submitted: February 9, 2005 Decided: February 16, 2005
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by published per curiam opinion.
Keith Tyrone Johnson; Curtis A. Norfleet; William R. Snyder; John
Pittman; Robert A. Ward, Appellants Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Keith Tyrone Johnson, Curtis A. Norfleet, William R.
Snyder, John Pittman, and Robert A. Ward appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000)
complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2000). We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on
the reasoning of the district court. See Norfleet v. Fahey, CA-04-
1075 (E.D. Va. Sept. 28, 2004). 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.