Filed: Oct. 14, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1766 EUGENE GRAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHESTERFIELD-COLONIAL HEIGHTS DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-98-8) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 14, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eug
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1766 EUGENE GRAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHESTERFIELD-COLONIAL HEIGHTS DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-98-8) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 14, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Euge..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1766 EUGENE GRAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHESTERFIELD-COLONIAL HEIGHTS DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-98-8) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 14, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eugene Gray, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Latham Micas, County Attor- ney, Michael Steven Jonas Chernau, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Ches- terfield, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Eugene Gray appeals the district court’s order dismissing his defamation and various constitutional violations claims. 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. Gray v. Chesterfield-Colonial Hgts. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., No. CA-98-8 (E.D. Va. Apr. 24, 1998). 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
