Filed: May 06, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2231 ROBERT MCBRIDE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:08-cv-00367-RBS-JEB) Submitted: April 22, 2009 Decided: May 6, 2009 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert McBride, Appellant Pro Se. Un
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2231 ROBERT MCBRIDE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:08-cv-00367-RBS-JEB) Submitted: April 22, 2009 Decided: May 6, 2009 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert McBride, Appellant Pro Se. Unp..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2231 ROBERT MCBRIDE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:08-cv-00367-RBS-JEB) Submitted: April 22, 2009 Decided: May 6, 2009 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert McBride, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert McBride appeals the district court’s orders dismissing this action challenging the constitutionality of a Virginia statute 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. McBride v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 2:08-cv-00367- RBS-JEB (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 9, 2008, entered Sept. 11, 2008; filed Sept. 23, 2008, entered Sept. 25, 2008). 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
