Filed: Mar. 13, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7749 DEVON DORSEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RONALD BOURNE, Deputy, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:07-cv-00838-LMB-TCB) Submitted: February 26, 2008 Decided: March 13, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Devon Dorsey, Appellant Pro Se
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7749 DEVON DORSEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RONALD BOURNE, Deputy, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:07-cv-00838-LMB-TCB) Submitted: February 26, 2008 Decided: March 13, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Devon Dorsey, Appellant Pro Se...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7749 DEVON DORSEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RONALD BOURNE, Deputy, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:07-cv-00838-LMB-TCB) Submitted: February 26, 2008 Decided: March 13, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Devon Dorsey, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Devon Dorsey appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Dorsey v. Bourne, No. 1:07-cv-00838-LMB-TCB (E.D. Va. filed Oct. 22, 2007; entered Oct. 26, 2007). We also deny the motion for production of documents. 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 -
