Filed: Nov. 04, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7118 LARRY PRESTON COOKE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES PARRISH, Chief; PAUL COX, Lieutenant; WILLIE IRVIN, Sergeant, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-663-2) Submitted: October 9, 1998 Decided: November 4, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7118 LARRY PRESTON COOKE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES PARRISH, Chief; PAUL COX, Lieutenant; WILLIE IRVIN, Sergeant, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-663-2) Submitted: October 9, 1998 Decided: November 4, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7118 LARRY PRESTON COOKE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES PARRISH, Chief; PAUL COX, Lieutenant; WILLIE IRVIN, Sergeant, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-663-2) Submitted: October 9, 1998 Decided: November 4, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Preston Cooke, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Larry Preston Cooke appeals the district court’s order dis- missing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny appellant’s motion for the appointment of counsel and affirm the dismissal on the reasoning of the district court. See Cooke v. Parrish, No. CA-98-663-2 (E.D. Va. June 30, 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
