Filed: May 04, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6176 FRED ARISTOTLE DAVIS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLENE DAY, Assistant Public Defender, Com- monwealth of Virginia; DAVID HICKS, Common- wealth Attorney for Commonwealth of Virginia, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-00-627-3) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 4, 2001 Before LUTTIG
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6176 FRED ARISTOTLE DAVIS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLENE DAY, Assistant Public Defender, Com- monwealth of Virginia; DAVID HICKS, Common- wealth Attorney for Commonwealth of Virginia, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-00-627-3) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 4, 2001 Before LUTTIG ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6176 FRED ARISTOTLE DAVIS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLENE DAY, Assistant Public Defender, Com- monwealth of Virginia; DAVID HICKS, Common- wealth Attorney for Commonwealth of Virginia, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-00-627-3) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 4, 2001 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fred Aristotle Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Fred Aristotle Davis, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) com- plaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Davis v. Day, No. CA-00-627-3 (E.D. Va. Jan. 3, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
