Filed: Aug. 27, 1996
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6626 CYNTHIA ANN ROYAL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CLAY HESTER, Sheriff; DEPUTY WICKMAN; DEPUTY MASON; DEPUTY SANDER; DEPUTY NICKSON; DEPUTY BENNETT; DEPUTY HAWKS; SERGEANT ANDERSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-554-3) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 27, 1996 Affirmed by unpublis
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6626 CYNTHIA ANN ROYAL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CLAY HESTER, Sheriff; DEPUTY WICKMAN; DEPUTY MASON; DEPUTY SANDER; DEPUTY NICKSON; DEPUTY BENNETT; DEPUTY HAWKS; SERGEANT ANDERSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-554-3) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 27, 1996 Affirmed by unpublish..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6626
CYNTHIA ANN ROYAL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CLAY HESTER, Sheriff; DEPUTY WICKMAN; DEPUTY
MASON; DEPUTY SANDER; DEPUTY NICKSON; DEPUTY
BENNETT; DEPUTY HAWKS; SERGEANT ANDERSON,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-95-554-3)
Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 27, 1996
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Cynthia Ann Royal, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Lawrence Dumville,
Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Cynthia Ann Royal appeals from the magistrate
judge's* final judgment denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the magistrate
judge's final judgment and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Royal v.
Hester, No. CA-95-554-3 (E.D. Va. Mar. 15, 1996). We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
*
The parties consented to disposition by a magistrate judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1988).
2