Filed: Aug. 31, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1598 E. GEORGE MINNS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; BILL MIMS, in his official and individual capacities; WILLIAM (BILL) WATSON, in his official and individual capacities; MELVIN HIKE, in his official and individual capacities; KIM M. CRUMP, in her individual capacity; JOHN DOE(S), in his or her individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Di
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1598 E. GEORGE MINNS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; BILL MIMS, in his official and individual capacities; WILLIAM (BILL) WATSON, in his official and individual capacities; MELVIN HIKE, in his official and individual capacities; KIM M. CRUMP, in her individual capacity; JOHN DOE(S), in his or her individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1598
E. GEORGE MINNS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; BILL MIMS, in his official and
individual capacities; WILLIAM (BILL) WATSON, in his official
and individual capacities; MELVIN HIKE, in his official and
individual capacities; KIM M. CRUMP, in her individual capacity;
JOHN DOE(S), in his or her individual capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (2:09-cv-00283-JRS-FBS)
Submitted: August 17, 2010 Decided: August 31, 2010
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
E. George Minns, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Michael Hall,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
E. George Minns appeals the district court’s orders
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) 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. Minns v. Virginia,
No. 2:09-cv-00283-JRS-FBS (E.D. Va. April 1, 2010; May 3, 2010).
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