Filed: Dec. 30, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7356 DAMON LOUIS WHEELOUS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD K. POSEY, State Police Officer; JOHN DOE, Superintendent of the Virginia State Police, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-98-299-2) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 30, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BU
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7356 DAMON LOUIS WHEELOUS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD K. POSEY, State Police Officer; JOHN DOE, Superintendent of the Virginia State Police, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-98-299-2) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 30, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUT..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7356 DAMON LOUIS WHEELOUS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD K. POSEY, State Police Officer; JOHN DOE, Superintendent of the Virginia State Police, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-98-299-2) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 30, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Damon Louis Wheelous, Appellant Pro Se. George Walerian Chabalewski, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Damon Louis Wheelous appeals the district court's order deny- ing relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. ยง 1983 (West Supp. 1999) 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. See Wheelous v. Posey, No. CA-98-299-2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 14, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2