Filed: May 20, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6184 ROBERT DUDLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. MUNLEY; G. L. JANNINGS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-00-601) Submitted: May 2, 2002 Decided: May 20, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Dudley, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6184 ROBERT DUDLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. MUNLEY; G. L. JANNINGS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-00-601) Submitted: May 2, 2002 Decided: May 20, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Dudley, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel L..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6184 ROBERT DUDLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. MUNLEY; G. L. JANNINGS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-00-601) Submitted: May 2, 2002 Decided: May 20, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Dudley, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Lawrence Dumville, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert Dudley appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) 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. Dudley v. Munley, No. CA-00-601 (E.D. Va. Jan. 2, 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 2
