The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
17-7188•William Lebron Andrew Church v. DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Jointly
17-7188Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitFeb 2, 2018
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-7188
WILLIAM LEBRON ANDREW CHURCH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Jointly and
Severally; WILLIAM MUSE, Chairman, Jointly and Severally; KAREN D.
BROWN, Chairman, Virginia Parole Board, Jointly and Severally; TERRY
GLENN, Virginia Department of Corrections, Interstate Compact Coordinator,
Jointly and Severally; OMBUDSMAN, Virginia Dept. Corrections, Jointly and
Severally; LT. RONALD C. MAXEY, Virginia State Police, Criminal Justice
Information, Jointly and Severally,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:16-cv-00845-HEH-RCY)
Submitted: January 30, 2018 Decided: February 2, 2018
Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Lebron Andrew Church, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
William Lebron Andrew Church appeals the district court’s order dismissing his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012). We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. Church v. Dir., Va. Dep’t of Corr., No. 3:16-cv-00845-HEH-
RCY (E.D. Va. Aug. 16, 2017). We also deny Church’s motion for a declaration
regarding the constitutionality of the procedures of the Virginia Parole Board. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.