Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Wyatt v. Jones, 03-1530 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-1530 Visitors: 43
Filed: Sep. 03, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1530 WILLIAM H. WYATT, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MORRIS JONES, Colonial; CITY OF PETERSBURG, a Municipal Corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia; C. A. BRYANT, Individually and in his capacity as an Officer with the Petersburg Police Department; T. E. INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS AN OFFICER WITH THE PETERSBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT; DETECTIVE INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS AN OF
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1530 WILLIAM H. WYATT, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MORRIS JONES, Colonial; CITY OF PETERSBURG, a Municipal Corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia; C. A. BRYANT, Individually and in his capacity as an Officer with the Petersburg Police Department; T. E. INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS AN OFFICER WITH THE PETERSBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT; DETECTIVE INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS AN OFFICER OF THE PETERSBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-03-247-3) Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 3, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William H. Wyatt, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William H. Wyatt, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Wyatt’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. See Wyatt v. Jones, No. CA-03-247-3 (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 18, 2003 & entered Mar. 19, 2003; Apr. 11, 2003). 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. DISMISSED 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