Filed: Aug. 28, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1535 LENIR RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KIMBERLY POWEL; J. C. LYLE, Officer #241; METRO TRANSIT AUTHORITY; FAIRFAX CONNECTOR; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; FREEDOM BAIL BONDING, CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. - MICHAEL LINDNER, Movant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:04-cv-00874-TSE) Submitted: August
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1535 LENIR RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KIMBERLY POWEL; J. C. LYLE, Officer #241; METRO TRANSIT AUTHORITY; FAIRFAX CONNECTOR; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; FREEDOM BAIL BONDING, CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. - MICHAEL LINDNER, Movant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:04-cv-00874-TSE) Submitted: August ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1535
LENIR RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
KIMBERLY POWEL; J. C. LYLE, Officer #241;
METRO TRANSIT AUTHORITY; FAIRFAX CONNECTOR;
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; FREEDOM BAIL
BONDING, CORPORATION,
Defendants - Appellees.
---------------------
MICHAEL LINDNER,
Movant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:04-cv-00874-TSE)
Submitted: August 23, 2007 Decided: August 28, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lenir Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Lenir Richardson appeals the district court’s orders
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and denying her
motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. See Richardson v. Powel, No. 1:04-cv-00874-
TSE (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 18, 2007, entered Apr. 19, 2007; filed May
1, 2007, entered May 2, 2007). 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
- 3 -