Filed: Feb. 26, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7646 RICKY LAMAR TURNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER, Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:12-cv-01303-TSE-JFA) Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: February 26, 2014 Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7646 RICKY LAMAR TURNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER, Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:12-cv-01303-TSE-JFA) Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: February 26, 2014 Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam o..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7646
RICKY LAMAR TURNER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER, Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:12-cv-01303-TSE-JFA)
Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: February 26, 2014
Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ricky Lamar Turner, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ricky Lamar Turner appeals the district court’s orders
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint and
denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. Turner v.
Commissioner, No. 1:12-cv-01303-TSE-JFA (E.D. Va. Aug. 23, 2013;
Oct. 1, 2013). 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