Filed: May 06, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6058 STEPHEN SHIELDS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FAIRFAX COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; CAROLYN ROBINSON, Fairfax County Public Schools; SHERMAN HARRISTON, Fairfax County Public Schools; EMANUEL CALLOWAY, Fairfax County Public Schools, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-631-2) Submitted: April 28, 200
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6058 STEPHEN SHIELDS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FAIRFAX COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; CAROLYN ROBINSON, Fairfax County Public Schools; SHERMAN HARRISTON, Fairfax County Public Schools; EMANUEL CALLOWAY, Fairfax County Public Schools, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-631-2) Submitted: April 28, 2005..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6058 STEPHEN SHIELDS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FAIRFAX COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; CAROLYN ROBINSON, Fairfax County Public Schools; SHERMAN HARRISTON, Fairfax County Public Schools; EMANUEL CALLOWAY, Fairfax County Public Schools, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-631-2) Submitted: April 28, 2005 Decided: May 6, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen Shields, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Stephen Shields 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 Shields v. Fairfax County Pub. Sch., No. CA-04-631-2 (E.D. Va. Dec. 10, 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 -
