Filed: Dec. 20, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7133 DAVID MCKEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ARLINGTON COUNTY; BETH ARTHUR, Chief Sheriff, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-04-339) Submitted: November 30, 2004 Decided: December 20, 2004 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David McK
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7133 DAVID MCKEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ARLINGTON COUNTY; BETH ARTHUR, Chief Sheriff, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-04-339) Submitted: November 30, 2004 Decided: December 20, 2004 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David McKe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7133 DAVID MCKEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ARLINGTON COUNTY; BETH ARTHUR, Chief Sheriff, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-04-339) Submitted: November 30, 2004 Decided: December 20, 2004 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David McKee, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: David McKee appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 McKee v. Arlington County, No. CA-04-339 (E.D. Va. Aug. 2, 2004). We deny McKee’s motion for appointment of counsel and 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 -
