Case Name: Mark A. BARNES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy PARR, Head Commonwealth Attorney; David J. Whitted, Deputy Commonwealth Attorney; D.J. Geiger, Deputy Executive Director Virginia Indigent Defense Commission, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-18
Citations: 439 F. App'x 248
Docket Number: No. 11-6454
Parties: Mark A. BARNES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy PARR, Head Commonwealth Attorney; David J. Whitted, Deputy Commonwealth Attorney; D.J. Geiger, Deputy Executive Director Virginia Indigent Defense Commission, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 439
Pages: 248–248

Head Matter:
Mark A. BARNES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy PARR, Head Commonwealth Attorney; David J. Whitted, Deputy Commonwealth Attorney; D.J. Geiger, Deputy Executive Director Virginia Indigent Defense Commission, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-6454.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 13, 2011.
Decided: July 18, 2011.
Mark A. Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. Jeff W. Rosen, Pender & Coward, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before DAVIS and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Mark A. Barnes appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint without prejudice. The district court dismissed the complaint pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), finding that the complaint challenges the fact or duration of Barnes' confinement and thus should have been raised in a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 following exhaustion of state remedies. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Barnes v. Parr, No. 1:11-cv-00160-LMBTCB (E.D.Va. Mar. 22, 2011). 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.