Filed: Aug. 22, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6513 TRAVIS L. DAVENPORT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICER JOHNSON, Boothworker, Defendant - Appellee, and REESE ROBBINS, Col. Head of Securities; LIEUTENANT SHELL, Shift Commander; LIEUTENANT JONES; MAJOR ALLEN, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. W. Curtis Sewell, Magistrate Judge. (CA-00-810-A) Submitted: June 25, 2002 Decided: August 22, 2002
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6513 TRAVIS L. DAVENPORT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICER JOHNSON, Boothworker, Defendant - Appellee, and REESE ROBBINS, Col. Head of Securities; LIEUTENANT SHELL, Shift Commander; LIEUTENANT JONES; MAJOR ALLEN, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. W. Curtis Sewell, Magistrate Judge. (CA-00-810-A) Submitted: June 25, 2002 Decided: August 22, 2002 ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6513 TRAVIS L. DAVENPORT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICER JOHNSON, Boothworker, Defendant - Appellee, and REESE ROBBINS, Col. Head of Securities; LIEUTENANT SHELL, Shift Commander; LIEUTENANT JONES; MAJOR ALLEN, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. W. Curtis Sewell, Magistrate Judge. (CA-00-810-A) Submitted: June 25, 2002 Decided: August 22, 2002 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Travis L. Davenport, Appellant Pro Se. Frank Fletcher Rennie, IV, COWAN & OWEN, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Travis L. Davenport appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) 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 Davenport v. Johnson, No. CA-00-810-A (E.D. Va. Mar. 20, 2002). 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