Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3 views

    Huff v. Attorney General of Virginia, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Johnny R. Huff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, they affirmed the district court's dismissal for the reasons stated in its August 26, 2008 order. The Court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented to the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Huff v. Attorney General of Virginia, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Johnny R. Huff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, they affirmed the district court's dismissal for the reasons stated in its August 26, 2008 order. The Court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented to the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-04-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-7886

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Johnny R. Huff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, they affirmed the district court's dismissal for the reasons stated in its August 26, 2008 order. The Court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented to the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    3 views2 pages

    Huff v. Attorney General of Virginia, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Johnny R. Huff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, they affirmed the district court's dismissal for the reasons stated in its August 26, 2008 order. The Court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented to the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 08-7886

    JOHNNY R. HUFF,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA; COMMONWEALTH OF
    VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD CHAIRMAN; TIM KAINE, Gov.,

    VIRGINIA;

    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate
    Judge. (3:07-cv-00744-MHL)

    Submitted:

    April 16, 2009

    Decided:

    April 23, 2009

    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Johnny R. Huff, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior


    Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Johnny
    dismissing

    R.

    Huffs

    Huff

    42

    appeals

    U.S.C.

    the

    1983

    district

    (2000)

    courts

    action.

    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

    We

    2008).
    legal
    before

    General,

    No.

    3:07-cv-00744-MHL

    (E.D.

    have

    Accordingly,

    we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.


    Attorney

    order

    Va.

    Huff v.
    Aug.

    26,

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and


    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like