Case ID: f-appx_91/html/0299-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nathaniel Lee HARVEY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. 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. Nathaniel Lee HARVEY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Gary Waters, Portsmouth, Virginia Sheriff; Von L. Piersall, Jr., Judge; Scott Ehrenworth, Prosecutor; R.M. Holley, Detective; C.E. Hollowood, Detective, Defendants—Appellees. Nathaniel Lee Harvey, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Gene M. Johnson, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections; Gary Water, Sheriff, Portsmouth, Virginia, Defendants—Appellees. Nathaniel Lee Harvey, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Scott Ehrenworth, Prosecutor; C.E. Holbwood, Officer-Jail; C.E. Hollowood, Detective, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 04-6156, 04-6265, 04-6314, 04-6315.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 25, 2004.
    Decided: April 2, 2004.
    Nathaniel Lee Harvey, Appellant pro se.
    Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   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