Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Day v. City of Hampton, 01-7170 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7170 Visitors: 15
Filed: Oct. 29, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7170 PHENROY DAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PHILIP SPRATLEY, III; B. COLEMAN, Arresting Officer who works for Chief of Police Menetti; B. J. ROBERTS, Sheriff, Defendants - Appellees, and CITY OF HAMPTON; COMMONWEALTH’S ATTORNEY’S OFFICE; SHERIFF’S OFFICE, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-99-1160-A) Submitte
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7170 PHENROY DAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PHILIP SPRATLEY, III; B. COLEMAN, Arresting Officer who works for Chief of Police Menetti; B. J. ROBERTS, Sheriff, Defendants - Appellees, and CITY OF HAMPTON; COMMONWEALTH’S ATTORNEY’S OFFICE; SHERIFF’S OFFICE, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-99-1160-A) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 29, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phenroy Day, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Samuel Lawrence Dumville, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Phenroy Day appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. 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. See Day v. City of Hampton, No. CA-99-1160-A (E.D. Va. June 14, 2001). We deny Day’s motion for appointment of appel- late counsel. 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 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer