Filed: Feb. 29, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2220 LEROY F. KING, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:15-cv-00174-RAJ-LRL) Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: February 29, 2016 Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ler
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2220 LEROY F. KING, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:15-cv-00174-RAJ-LRL) Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: February 29, 2016 Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lero..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2220
LEROY F. KING,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF NORFOLK, VIRGINIA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:15-cv-00174-RAJ-LRL)
Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: February 29, 2016
Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leroy F. King, Appellant Pro Se. Melvin Wayne Ringer, CITY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Leroy F. King appeals the district court’s orders
dismissing for failure to state a claim King’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2012) complaint and denying King’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6)
motion for relief from judgment. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. See King v. City of
Norfolk, No. 2:15-cv-00174-RAJ-LRL (E.D. Va. Aug. 24, 2015 &
Oct. 2, 2015). 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