Filed: Oct. 07, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1635 L. RUTHER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CECELIA CONTRERAS; MARK SIMMONS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cv-00495-RLW) Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 7, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. L. Ruther, Appella
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1635 L. RUTHER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CECELIA CONTRERAS; MARK SIMMONS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cv-00495-RLW) Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 7, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. L. Ruther, Appellan..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1635 L. RUTHER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CECELIA CONTRERAS; MARK SIMMONS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cv-00495-RLW) Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 7, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. L. Ruther, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: L. Ruther appeals the district court’s order in his civil action denying his motion to recuse the district judge. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ruther v. Contreras, No. 3:09-cv-00495-RLW (E.D. Va. Oct. 16, 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
