Filed: Aug. 05, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6335 STEPHEN SCOTT MITCHELL, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. SUSAN TROYANOS, Senior Probation and Parole Officer, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00049-RBS-FBS) Submitted: July 30, 2009 Decided: August 5, 2009 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. S
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6335 STEPHEN SCOTT MITCHELL, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. SUSAN TROYANOS, Senior Probation and Parole Officer, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00049-RBS-FBS) Submitted: July 30, 2009 Decided: August 5, 2009 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. St..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6335 STEPHEN SCOTT MITCHELL, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. SUSAN TROYANOS, Senior Probation and Parole Officer, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00049-RBS-FBS) Submitted: July 30, 2009 Decided: August 5, 2009 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen Scott Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Stephen Scott Mitchell appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Mitchell v. Troyanos, No. 2:09-cv-00049-RBS-FBS (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2009). 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
