Filed: Feb. 02, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6883 STANLEY L. REEDER, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. C/O STAUNTON, Sheriff; SHERIFF OF STAUNTON, VIRGINIA; DEPUTY SHERIFF GREGORY; CAPTAIN NICHOLSON; JOHN DOE #1; JOHN DOE #2, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:11-cv-00299-GEC) Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 2, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, K
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6883 STANLEY L. REEDER, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. C/O STAUNTON, Sheriff; SHERIFF OF STAUNTON, VIRGINIA; DEPUTY SHERIFF GREGORY; CAPTAIN NICHOLSON; JOHN DOE #1; JOHN DOE #2, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:11-cv-00299-GEC) Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 2, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, KI..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6883
STANLEY L. REEDER, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
C/O STAUNTON, Sheriff; SHERIFF OF STAUNTON, VIRGINIA; DEPUTY
SHERIFF GREGORY; CAPTAIN NICHOLSON; JOHN DOE #1; JOHN DOE
#2,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (7:11-cv-00299-GEC)
Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 2, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stanley L. Reeder, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stanley L. Reeder, 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. Reeder v. Staunton, No. 7:11-cv-00299-GEC (W.D. Va.
June, 30, 2011). 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