Filed: Dec. 21, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7083 GERRY LEE ROUSE, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KERMIT TENNIS, Police Officer, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (CA-03-739-2) Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 21, 2004 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerry Lee Rouse, Sr.,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7083 GERRY LEE ROUSE, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KERMIT TENNIS, Police Officer, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (CA-03-739-2) Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 21, 2004 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerry Lee Rouse, Sr., A..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7083 GERRY LEE ROUSE, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KERMIT TENNIS, Police Officer, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (CA-03-739-2) Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 21, 2004 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerry Lee Rouse, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Melvin Wayne Ringer, CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Gerry Lee Rouse, Sr. appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant and dismissing 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 Rouse v. Tennis, No. CA-03-739-2 (E.D. Va. June 28, 2004). 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 -
