Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Hundley v. Revish, 10-6542 (2010)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 10-6542 Visitors: 11
Filed: Aug. 06, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6542 JAMES J. HUNDLEY, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. RONALD REVISH, Probation Officer; AARON SUMPTER, Probation Officer; JOHN DOE, District Supervisor, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:10-cv-00068-LMB-IDD) Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 6, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and K
More
                             UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 10-6542


JAMES J. HUNDLEY,

                Plaintiff – Appellant,

          v.

RONALD REVISH, Probation Officer; AARON SUMPTER, Probation
Officer; JOHN DOE, District Supervisor,

                Defendants – Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.     Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:10-cv-00068-LMB-IDD)


Submitted:   July 27, 2010                 Decided:   August 6, 2010


Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit
Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


James J. Hundley, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

            James J. Hundley 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.         See Hundley v. Revish, No. 1:10-cv-

00068-LMB-IDD (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 31, 2010; entered Apr. 1,

2010).     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

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