Filed: Jun. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6369 TERRELL JOYNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KAREN J. BURRELL, Judge, City of Norfolk, VA; MAGISTRATE, City of Norfolk, VA; EVERETT MARTIN, Judge, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:17-cv-00666-MSD-LRL) Submitted: June 21, 2018 Decided: June 26, 2018 Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6369 TERRELL JOYNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KAREN J. BURRELL, Judge, City of Norfolk, VA; MAGISTRATE, City of Norfolk, VA; EVERETT MARTIN, Judge, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:17-cv-00666-MSD-LRL) Submitted: June 21, 2018 Decided: June 26, 2018 Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6369
TERRELL JOYNER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KAREN J. BURRELL, Judge, City of Norfolk, VA; MAGISTRATE, City of
Norfolk, VA; EVERETT MARTIN, Judge,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:17-cv-00666-MSD-LRL)
Submitted: June 21, 2018 Decided: June 26, 2018
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terrell Roshad Joyner, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Terrell Joyner appeals the district court’s order and judgment dismissing his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012).
We have reviewed the record and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
Joyner v. Burrell, No. 2:17-cv-00666-MSD-LRL (E.D. Va. Mar. 29, 2018). We deny
Joyner’s motions for a transcript at government’s expense and for a stay. 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