Filed: Jan. 24, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7605 CORNELIUS WESLEY MCCOY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KATHLYN WHITE FLORA, Assistant Public Defender, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:13-cv-01032-AJT-TRJ) Submitted: January 21, 2014 Decided: January 24, 2014 Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opin
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7605 CORNELIUS WESLEY MCCOY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KATHLYN WHITE FLORA, Assistant Public Defender, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:13-cv-01032-AJT-TRJ) Submitted: January 21, 2014 Decided: January 24, 2014 Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7605
CORNELIUS WESLEY MCCOY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KATHLYN WHITE FLORA, Assistant Public Defender,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga,
District Judge. (1:13-cv-01032-AJT-TRJ)
Submitted: January 21, 2014 Decided: January 24, 2014
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cornelius Wesley McCoy, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cornelius Wesley McCoy appeals the district court’s
order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action after a 28
U.S.C. § 1915A (2012) review. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s order. McCoy v. Flora, No. 1:13-cv-01032-AJT-TRJ (E.D.
Va. filed Aug. 28, 2013; entered Aug. 29, 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