Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Davis v. Smith, 10-7520 (2011)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 10-7520 Visitors: 27
Filed: Mar. 09, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7520 RICKY GLENDALL DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. TIMOTHY A. SMITH, Patrol Officer, Suffolk Police Department; J.R. RIVERA, Patrol Officer, Suffolk Police Department, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:09-cv-00274-HEH) Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 9, 2011 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 10-7520


RICKY GLENDALL DAVIS,

                Plaintiff - Appellant,

          v.

TIMOTHY A. SMITH, Patrol Officer, Suffolk Police Department;
J.R. RIVERA, Patrol Officer, Suffolk Police Department,

                Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:09-cv-00274-HEH)


Submitted:   February 28, 2011            Decided:   March 9, 2011


Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Ricky Glendall Davis, Appellant Pro Se.     D. Rossen S. Greene,
PENDER & COWARD, Suffolk, Virginia, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Ricky Glendall Davis, a state prisoner, appeals the

district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(2006)    complaint.       We   have   reviewed   the   record    and   find   no

reversible error.        Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court.           Davis v. Smith, No. 3:09-cv-00274-HEH

(E.D.    Va.    Sept.   28,   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