Filed: May 08, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6369 SHERI IMOGENE COSBY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR CLARKE; MS. THORNTON; MR. CHAIMBERS; MS. MILLER; OFFICER SMITH, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-5-2) Submitted: April 25, 2002 Decided: May 8, 2002 Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirm
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6369 SHERI IMOGENE COSBY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR CLARKE; MS. THORNTON; MR. CHAIMBERS; MS. MILLER; OFFICER SMITH, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-5-2) Submitted: April 25, 2002 Decided: May 8, 2002 Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirme..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6369 SHERI IMOGENE COSBY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR CLARKE; MS. THORNTON; MR. CHAIMBERS; MS. MILLER; OFFICER SMITH, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-5-2) Submitted: April 25, 2002 Decided: May 8, 2002 Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sheri Imogene Cosby, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Sheri Imogene Cosby appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice her 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. See Cosby v. Clarke, No. CA-02-5-2 (E.D. Va. Jan. 30, 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
