Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Cunningham v. Lemmon, 07-1292 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-1292 Visitors: 26
Filed: Oct. 23, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1292 WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAVID LEMMON, Colonel, Defendant - Appellee, and STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (6:06-cv-00169) Submitted: October 15, 2007 Decided: October 23, 2007 Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1292 WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAVID LEMMON, Colonel, Defendant - Appellee, and STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (6:06-cv-00169) Submitted: October 15, 2007 Decided: October 23, 2007 Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Cunningham, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Grottendieck Lanham, John A. Hoyer, STATE POLICE LEGAL COUNSEL, South Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: William Cunningham appeals a district court order and judgment order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, granting the Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissing his civil rights complaint challenging provisions of the West Virginia Sex Offender Registration Act (“Act”), West Va. Code Ann. §§ 15-12-1 - 15-12-10 (LexisNexis 2004 & Supp. 2007). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. See Cunningham v. Lemmon, No. 6:06-cv-00169 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 22, 2007). Cunningham has filed motions to certify questions to the United States Supreme Court and to file a supplemental informal brief. We deny the motions and 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 -
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