Filed: Mar. 09, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7520 RICKY GLENDALL DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. TIMOTHY A. SMITH, Patrol Officer, Suffolk Police Department; J.R. RIVERA, Patrol Officer, Suffolk Police Department, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:09-cv-00274-HEH) Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 9, 2011 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7520 RICKY GLENDALL DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. TIMOTHY A. SMITH, Patrol Officer, Suffolk Police Department; J.R. RIVERA, Patrol Officer, Suffolk Police Department, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:09-cv-00274-HEH) Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 9, 2011 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7520
RICKY GLENDALL DAVIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
TIMOTHY A. SMITH, Patrol Officer, Suffolk Police Department;
J.R. RIVERA, Patrol Officer, Suffolk Police Department,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:09-cv-00274-HEH)
Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 9, 2011
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ricky Glendall Davis, Appellant Pro Se. D. Rossen S. Greene,
PENDER & COWARD, Suffolk, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ricky Glendall Davis, a state prisoner, 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. Smith, No. 3:09-cv-00274-HEH
(E.D. Va. Sept. 28, 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