Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07694/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07694-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
1Starr Dalton
Appellant
John Doe #1
Appellee
John Doe #2
Appellee
Christie Love
Appellee
Peggy J. Pope
Appellee
Brenda J. Stuckey
Appellee
WV Parole Board
Appellee

Document Text:

Filed: February 22, 2010 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7694

(2:08-cv-01216)

1STARR DALTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WV PAROLE BOARD; CHRISTIE LOVE; PEGGY J. POPE; BRENDA J. 

STUCKEY; JOHN DOE #1; JOHN DOE #2,

Defendants - Appellees.

O R D E R

The court amends its opinion filed January 27, 2010,

as follows:

On the cover sheet, the panel information is corrected 

to read: “Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.”

For the Court – By Direction

/s/ Patricia S. Connor

Clerk

Appeal: 09-7694 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/22/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7694

1STARR DALTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WV PAROLE BOARD; CHRISTIE LOVE; PEGGY J. POPE; BRENDA J. 

STUCKEY; JOHN DOE #1; JOHN DOE #2,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, 

Chief District Judge. (2:08-cv-01216)

Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 27, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

1Starr Dalton, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher James Sears, 

SHUMAN, MCCUSKEY & SLICER, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7694 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/22/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

1Starr Dalton appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Dalton v. W. Va. Parole Bd., No. 2:08-cv-01216 (S.D.W. Va. 

Aug. 25, 2009). 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

Appeal: 09-7694 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/22/2010 Pg: 3 of 3