Gary Ward v. Eric Cooke, No. 15-6990 (4th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6990 GARY D. WARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ERIC COOKE, Attorney; CIRCUIT COURT OF SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:15-cv-00050-RBS-DEM) Submitted: November 13, 2015 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. THACKER, Decided: Circuit November 23, 2015 Judges, and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Dwayne Ward, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gary judgment D. Ward appeals dismissing his the 42 district U.S.C. § court’s 1983 (2012) order and complaint without prejudice for failing to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012). find no reversible error. We have reviewed the record and Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Ward v. Cooke, No. 2:15-cv-00050-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. May 27, 2015). We observe that Ward’s claim that he complied with the requirements of Va. Code Ann. § 19.2.-327.1 (Supp. 2015), and yet was denied relief by the Virginia unreviewable by the district court. U.S. 521, 532 (2011). circuit court is See Skinner v. Switzer, 562 We also conclude that Ward failed to allege facts showing that Virginia’s statutory procedures for establishing innocence based “fundamentally inadequate.” on biological testing are Dist. Att’y’s Office for the Third Jud. Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 69 (2009) (“Federal courts may upset a State’s postconviction relief procedures only if they are fundamentally inadequate to vindicate the substantive rights provided.”). § 1983 dispense regarding with an oral Finally, Ward failed to state a claim under alleged argument defective because jury instruction. the facts and contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 2 We legal this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.