Filed: Jan. 27, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7777 CONNIE EDWARD CLARK, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JANE WOODSON; LISA EDWARDS; WILLIAM P. ROGERS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-810-2) Submitted: January 16, 2003 Decided: January 27, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7777 CONNIE EDWARD CLARK, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JANE WOODSON; LISA EDWARDS; WILLIAM P. ROGERS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-810-2) Submitted: January 16, 2003 Decided: January 27, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7777 CONNIE EDWARD CLARK, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JANE WOODSON; LISA EDWARDS; WILLIAM P. ROGERS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-810-2) Submitted: January 16, 2003 Decided: January 27, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Connie Edward Clark, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Connie Edward Clark, Jr. appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Clark v. Woodson, No. CA-02-810-2 (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 12, 2002; entered Nov. 14, 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
