Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Thomas Walsh v. Diomedes Logothetis, 14-1166 (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 14-1166 Visitors: 52
Filed: Jul. 11, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1166 THOMAS WALSH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DIOMEDES LOGOTHETIS, in his individual capacity; AMY SEBRING, in her individual capacity; JEROME STRAUSS, in his individual capacity; VELMA JACKSON-WILLIAMS, in her individual capacity; BEVERLY WARREN, in her individual capacity; CRAIG ANDERSON, in his individual capacity; JOHN MUSGROVE, in his individual capacity; DAVID LITTON, in his individual capacity; MARTHA PARRISH, in her
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1166 THOMAS WALSH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DIOMEDES LOGOTHETIS, in his individual capacity; AMY SEBRING, in her individual capacity; JEROME STRAUSS, in his individual capacity; VELMA JACKSON-WILLIAMS, in her individual capacity; BEVERLY WARREN, in her individual capacity; CRAIG ANDERSON, in his individual capacity; JOHN MUSGROVE, in his individual capacity; DAVID LITTON, in his individual capacity; MARTHA PARRISH, in her individual capacity; KAWANA PACE-HARDING, in her individual capacity; CYNTHIA ANDREWS, in her individual capacity; MICHAEL RAO, in his individual capacity; REBECCA CAIN IVANS, in her individual capacity; KAREN BEEBE, in her individual capacity; MICHAEL PIERCE, in his individual capacity; QUINCY BYRDSONG, in his individual capacity; GREER SAUNDERS, in her individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cv-00401-JAG) Submitted: June 30, 2014 Decided: July 11, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Walsh, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Thomas Walsh appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Walsh v. Logothetis, No. 3:13-cv-00401-JAG (E.D. Va. Jan. 21, 2014). 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 3
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer