# Robinson v. Fahey

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · April 6, 2006 · 174 F. App'x 757

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1018947

## Case

- **Full name:** Frank A. ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Helen F. FAHEY, Chairman of the Virginia Parole Board; David Harker, Vice-Chairman, Virginia Parole Board; Carol Ann Sievers, Member, Virginia Parole Board, Defendants—Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 6, 2006
- **Citations:** 174 F. App'x 757
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Traxler, Gregory, Shedd
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1018947

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6866

FRANK A. ROBINSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

HELEN F. FAHEY, Chairman of the Virginia
Parole Board; DAVID HARKER, Vice-Chairman,
Virginia Parole Board; CAROL ANN SIEVERS,
Member, Virginia Parole Board,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate
Judge. (CA-04-149-3-DGL)

Submitted: March 30, 2006 Decided: April 6, 2006

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frank A. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

Frank A. Robinson appeals the magistrate judge’s orders

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and his

motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm both orders on the

reasoning of the magistrate judge. See Robinson v. Fahey, No. CA-

04-149-3-DGL (E.D. Va. April 15 & 21, 2005).* 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

*
The parties consented to jurisdiction of the magistrate judge
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

- 2 -

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1018947. Public record. Not legal advice.