Filed: Apr. 03, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7864 GEORGE BRANDON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HENRY W. STANLEY, JR., Chief of Police; JAY S. KEGLEY, Individual/Police Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:06-cv-00276-RAJ) Submitted: March 7, 2007 Decided: April 3, 2007 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpub
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7864 GEORGE BRANDON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HENRY W. STANLEY, JR., Chief of Police; JAY S. KEGLEY, Individual/Police Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:06-cv-00276-RAJ) Submitted: March 7, 2007 Decided: April 3, 2007 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpubl..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7864 GEORGE BRANDON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HENRY W. STANLEY, JR., Chief of Police; JAY S. KEGLEY, Individual/Police Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:06-cv-00276-RAJ) Submitted: March 7, 2007 Decided: April 3, 2007 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Brandon, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: George Brandon appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint based on his failure to pay a partial filing fee. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Brandon v. Stanley, No. 2:06-cv-00276-RAJ (E.D. Va. Oct. 11, 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 -
