Filed: Sep. 11, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1853 CLARENCE D. JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HENRICO COUNTY GOVERNMENT; LANCE WATSON, Dr.; DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:13-cv-00286-GBL-JFA) Submitted: August 30, 2013 Decided: September 11, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by un
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1853 CLARENCE D. JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HENRICO COUNTY GOVERNMENT; LANCE WATSON, Dr.; DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:13-cv-00286-GBL-JFA) Submitted: August 30, 2013 Decided: September 11, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unp..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1853 CLARENCE D. JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HENRICO COUNTY GOVERNMENT; LANCE WATSON, Dr.; DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:13-cv-00286-GBL-JFA) Submitted: August 30, 2013 Decided: September 11, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clarence D. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Clarence D. Johnson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Johnson v. Henrico Cnty. Gov’t, No. 1:13- cv-00286-GBL-JFA (E.D. Va. June 19, 2013). We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
