Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Shelton v. Richmond Public, 02-1300 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-1300 Visitors: 113
Filed: Sep. 04, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1300 THOMAS R. SHELTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHMOND PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Dennis W. Dohnal, Magistrate Judge. (CA-01-166-3) Submitted: August 16, 2002 Decided: September 4, 2002 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas R. Shelton, Appellant Pro
More
                               UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 02-1300



THOMAS R. SHELTON,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


RICHMOND PUBLIC SCHOOLS,

                                                Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Dennis W. Dohnal, Magistrate
Judge. (CA-01-166-3)


Submitted:   August 16, 2002              Decided:   September 4, 2002


Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Thomas R. Shelton, Appellant Pro Se.     Stephanie Ploszay Karn,
MCGUIREWOODS, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Thomas R. Shelton appeals the magistrate judge’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint.   We

have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and

find no reversible error.   Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

of the magistrate judge.*   See Shelton v. Richmond Public Schools,

No. CA-01-166-3 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2002).    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




     *
       The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate
judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994).


                                 2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer