Filed: Feb. 02, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7098 CHESTER L. HICKMAN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ROBERT MCDONNELL, Commonwealth of Virginia, Attorney General, etc., et al., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00163-RAJ-TEM) Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: February 2, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7098 CHESTER L. HICKMAN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ROBERT MCDONNELL, Commonwealth of Virginia, Attorney General, etc., et al., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00163-RAJ-TEM) Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: February 2, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7098 CHESTER L. HICKMAN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ROBERT MCDONNELL, Commonwealth of Virginia, Attorney General, etc., et al., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00163-RAJ-TEM) Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: February 2, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chester L. Hickman, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Chester L. Hickman, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hickman v. McDonnell, No. 2:09-cv-00163-RAJ-TEM (E.D. Va. Apr. 28, 2009). 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
