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)
06-6664•David Amberger v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections
06-6664Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitNov 3, 2006
*The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 46(d) (2000).
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6664
DAVID AMBERGER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections; JOHN JABE, Deputy
Director of Operations Virginia Department of
Corrections; LARRY HUFFMAN, Regional Director
of Virginia Department of Corrections; LARRY
W. JARVIS, Warden of Bland Correctional
Center; VIRGINIA BANDY, Institutional
Operations Administrator of Bland Correctional
Center; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER DOE, Bland
Correctional Center; JANE DOE, Correctional
Officer Bland Correctional Center,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (7:06-cv-00162-jlk)
Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 3, 2006
Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. *
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 3 --
- 2 -
David Amberger, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 2 of 3 --
- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
David Amberger appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant
Amberger’s motion to file supplemental pleadings and documents,
deny Amberger’s motion for the appointment of counsel, deny his
motion for a temporary restraining order, and affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Amberger v. Johnson, No.
7:06-cv-00162-jlk (W.D. Va. Apr. 3, 2006). 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 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.