Filed: Oct. 08, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6697 TAMI GARNETT-TREADWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM RHODES, in his individual capacity, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-1014) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 8, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tami
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6697 TAMI GARNETT-TREADWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM RHODES, in his individual capacity, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-1014) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 8, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tami G..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6697 TAMI GARNETT-TREADWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM RHODES, in his individual capacity, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-1014) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 8, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tami Garnett-Treadwell, Appellant Pro Se. Bruce Christopher Sams, Barbara Tuck Lovell, SAMS & HAWKINS, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Garnett-Treadwell v. Rhodes, No. CA-95-1014 (E.D. Va. Apr. 4, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
