Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Vanderwall v. Commonwealth of VA, 06-7458 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 06-7458 Visitors: 10
Filed: Apr. 09, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7458 ROBIN W. VANDERWALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; MARK R. WARNER, Governor; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; COMMANDER, VIRGINIA STATE POLICE; ADMINISTRATOR, VIRGINIA SEX REGISTRY; A. JOSEPH CANADA, JR.; RAMONA L. JOHNSTON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior Distri
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7458 ROBIN W. VANDERWALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; MARK R. WARNER, Governor; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; COMMANDER, VIRGINIA STATE POLICE; ADMINISTRATOR, VIRGINIA SEX REGISTRY; A. JOSEPH CANADA, JR.; RAMONA L. JOHNSTON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:05-cv-01341-JCC) Submitted: March 7, 2007 Decided: April 9, 2007 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robin W. Vanderwall, Appellant Pro Se. G. Michael Favale, James Christian Stuchell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Jeff Wayne Rosen, Lisa Ehrich, PENDER & COWARD, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robin W. Vanderwall 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. Vanderwall v. Virginia, No. 1:05-cv-01341-JCC (E.D. Va. Aug. 9, 2006). We grant Vanderwall’s motion to amend his informal brief and deny his motion for appointment of counsel. 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