Fuller v. Saar ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-7848
    GERALD DAVIS FULLER,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    MARY   ANN   SAAR,    Secretary;  WILLIAM  W.
    SONDERVAN, Ed.D.,    Commissioner; J. MICHAEL
    STOUFFER, Warden,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge;
    William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-2940-WMN)
    Submitted:   February 4, 2004            Decided:   February 18, 2004
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Gerald Davis Fuller, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Gerald Davis Fuller appeals the district court's orders
    dismissing his civil action pursuant to 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     (2000),
    and denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion, in which he
    challenges    the   district   court's   construction    of     his    civil
    complaint.    We have reviewed the record and the district court's
    orders and find no reversible error.
    Fuller’s     underlying    complaint     and        motion     for
    reconsideration make clear that he is challenging the validity of
    an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or sentence, either or
    both, and that he seeks release from incarceration.               However,
    because Fuller did not make any showing that his conviction has
    been successfully challenged or overturned, his § 1983 complaint
    was subject to dismissal pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 
    512 U.S. 477
    , 486-87 (1994).     Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
    dismissal of his § 1983 complaint on that basis.
    In addition, we find that the district court's denial of
    Fuller’s Rule 59(e) motion was not an abuse of discretion.             Temkin
    v. Frederick County Comm’rs, 
    945 F.2d 716
    , 724 (4th Cir. 1991).           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 AS MODIFIED
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-7848

Judges: Widener, Niemeyer, Michael

Filed Date: 2/18/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024