Filed: May 27, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1554 DATUK RAMESH CHANDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STAN G. BARRY, Sheriff, Fairfax County, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-01-1333) Submitted: May 13, 2003 Decided: May 27, 2003 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hunter C. Harrison,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1554 DATUK RAMESH CHANDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STAN G. BARRY, Sheriff, Fairfax County, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-01-1333) Submitted: May 13, 2003 Decided: May 27, 2003 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hunter C. Harrison, J..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1554 DATUK RAMESH CHANDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STAN G. BARRY, Sheriff, Fairfax County, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-01-1333) Submitted: May 13, 2003 Decided: May 27, 2003 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hunter C. Harrison, Jr., McLean, Virginia, for Appellant. James R. Parrish, BRANDT, JENNINGS, SNEE, DUPRAY & PARRISH, P.L.L.C., Falls Church, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Datuk Ramesh Chander appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendant on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Chander v. Barry, No. CA-01-1333 (E.D. Va. Apr. 24, 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
