Filed: Oct. 11, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1049 DOUGLAS C. CHARNOCK, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; EDWARD W. HANSON, JR.; FREDERICK B. LOWE, JR., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:16-cv-00493-RAJ-LRL) Submitted: September 19, 2017 Decided: October 11, 2017 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unp
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1049 DOUGLAS C. CHARNOCK, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; EDWARD W. HANSON, JR.; FREDERICK B. LOWE, JR., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:16-cv-00493-RAJ-LRL) Submitted: September 19, 2017 Decided: October 11, 2017 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpu..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1049
DOUGLAS C. CHARNOCK, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; EDWARD W. HANSON, JR.;
FREDERICK B. LOWE, JR.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:16-cv-00493-RAJ-LRL)
Submitted: September 19, 2017 Decided: October 11, 2017
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael D.J. Eisenberg, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL D.J. EISENBERG, Washington,
D.C., for Appellant. Mark R. Herring, Attorney General of Virginia, Samuel T. Towell,
Deputy Attorney General, Nicholas F. Simopoulos, Senior Assistant Attorney General,
Christian A. Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Douglas C. Charnock, Jr., appeals the district court’s order granting defendants’
motion to dismiss his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Charnock v. Virginia, No. 2:16-cv-00493-RAJ-LRL (E.D. Va. Jan. 5, 2017). 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