Filed: Dec. 12, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7210 JOHN DAVID MCBRIDE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH’S ATTORNEY’S OFFICE; STATE OF VIRGINIA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-172-3) Submitted: November 21, 2003 Decided: December 12, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7210 JOHN DAVID MCBRIDE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH’S ATTORNEY’S OFFICE; STATE OF VIRGINIA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-172-3) Submitted: November 21, 2003 Decided: December 12, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam o..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7210 JOHN DAVID MCBRIDE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH’S ATTORNEY’S OFFICE; STATE OF VIRGINIA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-172-3) Submitted: November 21, 2003 Decided: December 12, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John David McBride, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John David McBride appeals the district court’s order denying relief 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 McBride v. Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office, No. CA-03-172-6 (E.D. Va. July 24, 2003). We deny McBride’s motion for release and compensation relief. 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
