Harvey v. Johnson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6156
NATHANIEL LEE HARVEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia
Department of Corrections; GARY WATERS,
Sheriff; SENTENCING JUDGE, Portsmouth,
Virginia Civil Center 1982; VON L. PIERSALL,
JR., Convicting Judge; SCOTT EHRENWORTH,
Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney; STEPHEN R.
MCCULLOUGH, Virginia Assistant Attorney
General,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 04-6265
NATHANIEL LEE HARVEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GARY WATERS, Portsmouth, Virginia Sheriff;
VON L. PIERSALL, JR., Judge; SCOTT
EHRENWORTH, Prosecutor; R. M. HOLLEY,
Detective; C. E. HOLLOWOOD, Detective,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 04-6314
NATHANIEL LEE HARVEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of Virginia
Department of Corrections; GARY WATER,
Sheriff, Portsmouth, Virginia,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 04-6315
NATHANIEL LEE HARVEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SCOTT EHRENWORTH, Prosecutor; C. E. HOLBWOOD,
Officer-Jail; C. E. HOLLOWOOD, Detective,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (CA-03-885-2; CA-04-29-2; CA-04-27-2; CA-04-28-2)
Submitted: March 25, 2004 Decided: April 2, 2004
Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
- 2 -
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nathaniel Lee Harvey, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Nathaniel Lee Harvey appeals the district court’s orders
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaints. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Harvey v.
Johnson, No. CA-03-885-2 (E.D. Va. Jan. 5, 2004); Harvey v. Waters,
No. CA-04-29-2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 3, 2004); Harvey v. Johnson, No. CA-
04-27-2 (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 3, 2004 & entered Feb. 4, 2004);
Harvey v. Ehrenworth, No. CA-04-28-2 (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 3, 2004
& entered Feb. 4, 2004). We deny Harvey’s motions for preparation
of transcripts, for oral argument, and for review of the records in
the clerk’s office. 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
- 4 -