Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

El v. Commonwealth of VA, 06-1352 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 06-1352 Visitors: 11
Filed: Jul. 31, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1352 AUBREY J. EL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Department of Social Services, Ex Rel Margo El, Anthony Conyers, Jr., Commissioner for the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Social Services; NATHANIEL L. YOUNG, JR., Individually and in his Official Capacity as Director of the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Social Services, Division of Child Support Enforcement, Defendants - Appellees.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1352 AUBREY J. EL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Department of Social Services, Ex Rel Margo El, Anthony Conyers, Jr., Commissioner for the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Social Services; NATHANIEL L. YOUNG, JR., Individually and in his Official Capacity as Director of the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Social Services, Division of Child Support Enforcement, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (3:05-cv-00648-REP) Submitted: July 25, 2006 Decided: July 31, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aubrey J. El, Appellant Pro Se. Judith Williams Jagdmann, James Walter Hopper, Edward Meade Macon, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Aubrey J. El appeals the district court’s orders denying his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action and his motions for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. El v. Commonwealth of Va., No. 3:05-cv-00648- REP (E.D. Va. Feb. 10, 2006). 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 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer