Filed: Feb. 07, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7881 JASON W. LANE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PATRICIA WATSON, Commonwealth Attorney; STEVEN B. NOVEY, Lawyer; ROBERT G. O’HARA, JR., Judge, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-04-1320) Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 7, 2005 Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Sen
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7881 JASON W. LANE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PATRICIA WATSON, Commonwealth Attorney; STEVEN B. NOVEY, Lawyer; ROBERT G. O’HARA, JR., Judge, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-04-1320) Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 7, 2005 Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Seni..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7881 JASON W. LANE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PATRICIA WATSON, Commonwealth Attorney; STEVEN B. NOVEY, Lawyer; ROBERT G. O’HARA, JR., Judge, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-04-1320) Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 7, 2005 Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jason W. Lane, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jason W. Lane 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 Lane v. Watson, No. CA-04-1320 (E.D. Va. Nov. 15, 2004). 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 -
