Filed: Jun. 04, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2256 WILLIAM P. HALEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus W. RANDOLPH NICHOLS, Superintendent, Chesapeake Public Schools, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:06-cv-00361-RAJ) Submitted: May 31, 2007 Decided: June 4, 2007 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2256 WILLIAM P. HALEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus W. RANDOLPH NICHOLS, Superintendent, Chesapeake Public Schools, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:06-cv-00361-RAJ) Submitted: May 31, 2007 Decided: June 4, 2007 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam o..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2256 WILLIAM P. HALEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus W. RANDOLPH NICHOLS, Superintendent, Chesapeake Public Schools, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:06-cv-00361-RAJ) Submitted: May 31, 2007 Decided: June 4, 2007 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William P. Haley, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Jon Barry, David John Sullivan, KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William P. Haley appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Haley v. Nichols, No. 2:06-cv-00361- RAJ (E.D. Va. Oct. 4 & 27, 2006). 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 -
