Case Name: Gregory L. SMITH, a/k/a Sharrieff El-Shabazz, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Helen F. FAHEY, Chairman of the Virginia Parole Board, in her individual and official capacities; David N. Harker, Vice Chairman, Virginia Parole Board in his individual and official capacities; Gene M. Johnson, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, in his individual and official capacities; Doris L. Ewing, Manager of the Court & Legal Services Unit of the Virginia Department of Corrections, in her individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees; Antonio A. Anthony, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Helen F. Fahey, Chairman of the Virginia Parole Board, in her individual and official capacities; David N. Harker, Vice Chairman Virginia Parole Board, in his individual and official capacities; Gene M. Johnson, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, in his individual and official capacities; Doris L. Ewing, Manager of the Court & Legal Services Unit of the Virginia Department of Corrections, in her individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees; Anthony Denaro Freeman, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Helen F. Fahey, Chairman of the Virginia Parole Board, in her individual and official capacities; David N. Harker, Vice Chairman Virginia Parole Board, in his individual and official capacities; Gene M. Johnson, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, in his individual and official capacities; Doris L. Ewing, Manager of the Court & Legal Services Unit of the Virginia Department of Corrections, in her individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-29
Citations: 174 F. App'x 144
Docket Number: No. 05-7615, 05-7616, 05-7617
Parties: Gregory L. SMITH, a/k/a Sharrieff El-Shabazz, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Helen F. FAHEY, Chairman of the Virginia Parole Board, in her individual and official capacities; David N. Harker, Vice Chairman, Virginia Parole Board in his individual and official capacities; Gene M. Johnson, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, in his individual and official capacities; Doris L. Ewing, Manager of the Court & Legal Services Unit of the Virginia Department of Corrections, in her individual and official capacities, Defendants—Appel-lees. Antonio A. Anthony, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Helen F. Fahey, Chairman of the Virginia Parole Board, in her individual and official capacities; David N. Harker, Vice Chairman Virginia Parole Board, in his individual and offi cial capacities; Gene M. Johnson, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, in his individual and official capacities; Doris L. Ewing, Manager of the Court & Legal Services Unit of the Virginia Department of Corrections, in her individual and official capacities, Defendants—Appellees. Anthony Denaro Freeman, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Helen F. Fahey, Chairman of the Virginia Parole Board, in her individual and official capacities; David N. Harker, Vice Chairman Virginia Parole Board, in his individual and official capacities; Gene M. Johnson, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, in his individual and official capacities; Doris L. Ewing, Manager of the Court & Legal Services Unit of the Virginia Department of Corrections, in her individual and official capacities, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 174
Pages: 144–145

Head Matter:
Gregory L. SMITH, a/k/a Sharrieff El-Shabazz, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Helen F. FAHEY, Chairman of the Virginia Parole Board, in her individual and official capacities; David N. Harker, Vice Chairman, Virginia Parole Board in his individual and official capacities; Gene M. Johnson, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, in his individual and official capacities; Doris L. Ewing, Manager of the Court & Legal Services Unit of the Virginia Department of Corrections, in her individual and official capacities, Defendants—Appel-lees. Antonio A. Anthony, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Helen F. Fahey, Chairman of the Virginia Parole Board, in her individual and official capacities; David N. Harker, Vice Chairman Virginia Parole Board, in his individual and offi cial capacities; Gene M. Johnson, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, in his individual and official capacities; Doris L. Ewing, Manager of the Court & Legal Services Unit of the Virginia Department of Corrections, in her individual and official capacities, Defendants—Appellees. Anthony Denaro Freeman, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Helen F. Fahey, Chairman of the Virginia Parole Board, in her individual and official capacities; David N. Harker, Vice Chairman Virginia Parole Board, in his individual and official capacities; Gene M. Johnson, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, in his individual and official capacities; Doris L. Ewing, Manager of the Court & Legal Services Unit of the Virginia Department of Corrections, in her individual and official capacities, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 05-7615, 05-7616, 05-7617.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 23, 2006.
Decided: March 29, 2006.
Gregory L. Smith, Antonio A. Anthony, Anthony Denaro Freeman, Appellants Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Gregory L. Smith, Antonio A. Anthony, and Anthony Denaro Freeman appeal the district court's order denying relief on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Smith v. Fahey; Anthony v. Fahey; Freeman v. Fahey, No. CA-05-52-2 (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 6, 2005 & entered Sept. 7, 2005). We also deny Appellants' motion for reconsideration of their request to consolidate the filing fee. 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