Filed: Sep. 26, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7002 GARY BUTERRA WILLIAMS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. MR. BRADLEY CAVEDO, State Judge, Richmond Circuit Court; MR. CARY BOWEN, State Court Appointed Counsel, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:13-cv-00672-HEH) Submitted: September 23, 2014 Decided: September 26, 2014 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit J
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7002 GARY BUTERRA WILLIAMS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. MR. BRADLEY CAVEDO, State Judge, Richmond Circuit Court; MR. CARY BOWEN, State Court Appointed Counsel, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:13-cv-00672-HEH) Submitted: September 23, 2014 Decided: September 26, 2014 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Ju..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7002
GARY BUTERRA WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MR. BRADLEY CAVEDO, State Judge, Richmond Circuit Court;
MR. CARY BOWEN, State Court Appointed Counsel,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:13-cv-00672-HEH)
Submitted: September 23, 2014 Decided: September 26, 2014
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary Buterra Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gary Buterra Williams appeals the district court’s
orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012) and denying reconsideration. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
Williams v. Cavedo, No. 3:13-cv-00672-HEH (E.D. Va. Mar. 4 &
June 27, 2014). 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