UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7848
GERALD DAVIS FULLER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MARY ANN SAAR, Secretary; WILLIAM W.
SONDERVAN, Ed.D., Commissioner; J. MICHAEL
STOUFFER, Warden,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge;
William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-2940-WMN)
Submitted: February 4, 2004 Decided: February 18, 2004
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gerald Davis Fuller, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Gerald Davis Fuller appeals the district court's orders
dismissing his civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000),
and denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion, in which he
challenges the district court's construction of his civil
complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's
orders and find no reversible error.
Fuller’s underlying complaint and motion for
reconsideration make clear that he is challenging the validity of
an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or sentence, either or
both, and that he seeks release from incarceration. However,
because Fuller did not make any showing that his conviction has
been successfully challenged or overturned, his § 1983 complaint
was subject to dismissal pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477, 486-87 (1994). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
dismissal of his § 1983 complaint on that basis.
In addition, we find that the district court's denial of
Fuller’s Rule 59(e) motion was not an abuse of discretion. Temkin
v. Frederick County Comm’rs, 945 F.2d 716, 724 (4th Cir. 1991). 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 AS MODIFIED
- 2 -