Filed: Jan. 24, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7178 MICHAEL A. GOODE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; PORTSMOUTH POLICE DEPARTMENT; PORTSMOUTH CIRCUIT COURT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-95-67) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 24, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpubl
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7178 MICHAEL A. GOODE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; PORTSMOUTH POLICE DEPARTMENT; PORTSMOUTH CIRCUIT COURT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-95-67) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 24, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpubli..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7178 MICHAEL A. GOODE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; PORTSMOUTH POLICE DEPARTMENT; PORTSMOUTH CIRCUIT COURT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-95-67) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 24, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael A. Goode, Appellant Pro Se. William Mark Dunn, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying a writ of prohibition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we af- firm on the reasoning of the district court. Goode v. Virginia, No. CA-95-67 (E.D. Va. July 31, 1995). 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
