Filed: Mar. 17, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8409 BRANDON WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICER VINSON; D.S. STORY, Supervisor; SERGEANT DOLE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:08-cv-00851-LMB-TCB) Submitted: March 12, 2009 Decided: March 17, 2009 Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8409 BRANDON WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICER VINSON; D.S. STORY, Supervisor; SERGEANT DOLE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:08-cv-00851-LMB-TCB) Submitted: March 12, 2009 Decided: March 17, 2009 Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpub..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8409 BRANDON WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICER VINSON; D.S. STORY, Supervisor; SERGEANT DOLE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:08-cv-00851-LMB-TCB) Submitted: March 12, 2009 Decided: March 17, 2009 Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brandon Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Brandon Williams appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Williams v. Officer Vinson, No. 1:08-cv-00851-LMB-TCB (E.D. Va. filed Oct. 22, 2008 & entered Oct. 27, 2008). 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
