Filed: Sep. 02, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1521 HAROLD G. HOBGOOD, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DAVID F. PUGH, Individually and in his official capacity as Judge in the Circuit Court for the City of Newport News, Virginia; MARK R. HERRING, Individually and in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Virginia, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jack
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1521 HAROLD G. HOBGOOD, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DAVID F. PUGH, Individually and in his official capacity as Judge in the Circuit Court for the City of Newport News, Virginia; MARK R. HERRING, Individually and in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Virginia, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jacks..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1521 HAROLD G. HOBGOOD, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DAVID F. PUGH, Individually and in his official capacity as Judge in the Circuit Court for the City of Newport News, Virginia; MARK R. HERRING, Individually and in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Virginia, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (4:14-cv-00026-RAJ-TEM) Submitted: August 28, 2014 Decided: September 2, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harold G. Hobgood, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Harold G. Hobgood, Sr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hobgood v. Pugh, No. 4:14-cv-00026-RAJ-TEM (E.D. Va. June 2, 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 2
