Filed: Dec. 15, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7272 CHARLES ANTHONY WALKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHUCK MOORE, Sheriff; EILEEN SPRINKLE, Jail Administrator; JERRY ANDERSON, Captain, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-406) Submitted: December 9, 2004 Decided: December 15, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7272 CHARLES ANTHONY WALKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHUCK MOORE, Sheriff; EILEEN SPRINKLE, Jail Administrator; JERRY ANDERSON, Captain, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-406) Submitted: December 9, 2004 Decided: December 15, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7272 CHARLES ANTHONY WALKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHUCK MOORE, Sheriff; EILEEN SPRINKLE, Jail Administrator; JERRY ANDERSON, Captain, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-406) Submitted: December 9, 2004 Decided: December 15, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Anthony Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Charles Anthony Walker appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint without prejudice for failing to comply with the court’s order that he particularize and amend his complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Walker v. Moore, No. CA-04-406 (E.D. Va. filed July 15, 2004 & entered July 16, 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 -
