Filed: Oct. 23, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1510 MERLE T. RUTLEDGE, JR., Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CITY OF NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00157-MSD-JEB) Submitted: October 20, 2009 Decided: October 23, 2009 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per c
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1510 MERLE T. RUTLEDGE, JR., Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CITY OF NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00157-MSD-JEB) Submitted: October 20, 2009 Decided: October 23, 2009 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per cu..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1510 MERLE T. RUTLEDGE, JR., Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CITY OF NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00157-MSD-JEB) Submitted: October 20, 2009 Decided: October 23, 2009 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Merle T. Rutledge, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Merle T. Rutledge, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) civil rights complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s Brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b), and Rutledge’s brief alleges no error committed by the district court. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court. 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
