Filed: Dec. 19, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2080 DON W. MCKINNEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District Judge. (2:12-cv-00032-JPJ-PMS) Submitted: December 17, 2013 Decided: December 19, 2013 Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Don W. McKinney, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2080 DON W. MCKINNEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District Judge. (2:12-cv-00032-JPJ-PMS) Submitted: December 17, 2013 Decided: December 19, 2013 Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Don W. McKinney, Appellant ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2080
DON W. MCKINNEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones,
District Judge. (2:12-cv-00032-JPJ-PMS)
Submitted: December 17, 2013 Decided: December 19, 2013
Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Don W. McKinney, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Don W. McKinney appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. McKinney v. Commonwealth of Va., No.
2:12-cv-00032-JPJ-PMS (W.D. Va. July 31, 2013). We deny
McKinney’s pending motion. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2