Filed: Mar. 20, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8173 CHETANAND KUMAR SEWRAZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. EDWARD GUICE, Lieutenant; SCOTT BAILEY, Detective; KATHERINE ATKINS, Evidence Technician; DARRIN EDWARD BROMSETH, Detective; CRAIG BROWN, Detective; JODY BRUNNER, Detective; JUANAMETTRE BUTLER, Officer; FRANK CARPENTER; JESSICA CHAMER, Evidence Technician, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richm
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8173 CHETANAND KUMAR SEWRAZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. EDWARD GUICE, Lieutenant; SCOTT BAILEY, Detective; KATHERINE ATKINS, Evidence Technician; DARRIN EDWARD BROMSETH, Detective; CRAIG BROWN, Detective; JODY BRUNNER, Detective; JUANAMETTRE BUTLER, Officer; FRANK CARPENTER; JESSICA CHAMER, Evidence Technician, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmo..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8173 CHETANAND KUMAR SEWRAZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. EDWARD GUICE, Lieutenant; SCOTT BAILEY, Detective; KATHERINE ATKINS, Evidence Technician; DARRIN EDWARD BROMSETH, Detective; CRAIG BROWN, Detective; JODY BRUNNER, Detective; JUANAMETTRE BUTLER, Officer; FRANK CARPENTER; JESSICA CHAMER, Evidence Technician, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cv-00035-RLW) Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 20, 2009 Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chetanand Kumar Sewraz, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Chetanand Kumar Sewraz appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sewraz v. Guice, No. 3:08-cv-00035-RLW (E.D. Va. Aug. 26, 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