Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Hendrick Townsend v. County of Accomack, 13-1714 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 13-1714 Visitors: 59
Filed: Sep. 30, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1714 HENDRICK TOWNSEND, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. COUNTY OF ACCOMACK, Department of Building and Zoning; DAVID FLUHART, Director; STEVEN MINER, County Administrator; MARK BOWDEN; TOM WILLET; DAVE ENGLEHART; GRACIE MILBOURNE; WALTER WESSELS; LARRY GIDDENS; TODD GODWIN; BILLY MURPHY, Deputy; THOMAS DIX; NANCY MATTHEWS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, a
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1714 HENDRICK TOWNSEND, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. COUNTY OF ACCOMACK, Department of Building and Zoning; DAVID FLUHART, Director; STEVEN MINER, County Administrator; MARK BOWDEN; TOM WILLET; DAVE ENGLEHART; GRACIE MILBOURNE; WALTER WESSELS; LARRY GIDDENS; TODD GODWIN; BILLY MURPHY, Deputy; THOMAS DIX; NANCY MATTHEWS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:12-cv-00305-MSD-LRL) Submitted: September 26, 2013 Decided: September 30, 2013 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hendrick Townsend, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Lawrence Dumville, NORRIS & ST. CLAIR P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Hendrick Townsend appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil case. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Townsend v. Cnty. of Accomack, No. 2:12-cv-00305-MSD-LRL (E.D. Va. Apr. 30, 2013). 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer