Filed: Oct. 29, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7292 GEORGE E. CARTER-EL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-1003-A) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 29, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George E. Ca
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7292 GEORGE E. CARTER-EL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-1003-A) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 29, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George E. Car..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7292 GEORGE E. CARTER-EL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-1003-A) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 29, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George E. Carter-El, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 his action filed under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998). 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. Carter-El v. City of Alexandria, No. CA-98-1003-A (E.D. Va. Aug. 5, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
