Filed: Jan. 20, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7396 JOEL A. DAVIS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ROBERT J. MCCABE, Sheriff’s Department, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:09-cv-00335-HEH) Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 20, 2011 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joel A. Davis, Jr., Ap
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7396 JOEL A. DAVIS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ROBERT J. MCCABE, Sheriff’s Department, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:09-cv-00335-HEH) Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 20, 2011 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joel A. Davis, Jr., App..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7396
JOEL A. DAVIS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT J. MCCABE, Sheriff’s Department,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:09-cv-00335-HEH)
Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 20, 2011
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joel A. Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jeremy David Capps,
HARMAN, CLAYTOR, CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joel A. Davis, Jr. appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Davis v. McCabe, No. 3:09-cv-00335-HEH (E.D. Va.
Sept. 15, 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