Filed: Mar. 18, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7960 OCCEA STARKE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus AVAMARK REFRESHMENT SERVICES; M. WADE, Sheriff of Henrico County Jail; WAYNE HEAD, Kitchen Supervisor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-687-2) Submitted: February 28, 2002 Decided: March 18, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judge
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7960 OCCEA STARKE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus AVAMARK REFRESHMENT SERVICES; M. WADE, Sheriff of Henrico County Jail; WAYNE HEAD, Kitchen Supervisor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-687-2) Submitted: February 28, 2002 Decided: March 18, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7960 OCCEA STARKE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus AVAMARK REFRESHMENT SERVICES; M. WADE, Sheriff of Henrico County Jail; WAYNE HEAD, Kitchen Supervisor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-687-2) Submitted: February 28, 2002 Decided: March 18, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Occea Starke, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Occea Starke appeals the district court’s orders denying re- lief without prejudice on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint and denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Starke v. Avamark Refreshment Servs., No. CA-01-687-2 (E.D. Va. Oct. 4, 2001; Nov. 15, 2001). 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
