Filed: Feb. 02, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7307 FLETCHER J. MITCHELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE, for the City of Virginia Beach; BEN PAVEK, III, Esquire, Senior Assistant Public Defender, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-04-378-2) Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 2, 2005 Before LUTTIG and D
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7307 FLETCHER J. MITCHELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE, for the City of Virginia Beach; BEN PAVEK, III, Esquire, Senior Assistant Public Defender, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-04-378-2) Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 2, 2005 Before LUTTIG and DU..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7307 FLETCHER J. MITCHELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE, for the City of Virginia Beach; BEN PAVEK, III, Esquire, Senior Assistant Public Defender, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-04-378-2) Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 2, 2005 Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fletcher J. Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Fletcher J. Mitchell 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 deny Mitchell’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Mitchell v. Public Defender’s Office, No. CA-04-378-2 (E.D. Va. June 29, 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 -
