Filed: Mar. 19, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6060 LARRY DYNELL JUSTICE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICER MIKE DOBROWSKI, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-03-866-2) Submitted: March 11, 2004 Decided: March 19, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Dynell Justice, Appella
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6060 LARRY DYNELL JUSTICE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICER MIKE DOBROWSKI, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-03-866-2) Submitted: March 11, 2004 Decided: March 19, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Dynell Justice, Appellan..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6060 LARRY DYNELL JUSTICE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICER MIKE DOBROWSKI, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-03-866-2) Submitted: March 11, 2004 Decided: March 19, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Dynell Justice, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Larry Dynell Justice 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 for the reasons stated by the district court. See Justice v. Dobrowski, No. CA-03-866-2 (E.D. Va. filed Dec. 11, 2003 & entered Dec. 12, 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. AFFIRMED - 2 -
