Filed: Nov. 24, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6781 MARK FAREWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES HINGELEY, public defender; ELIZABETH MURTAGH, deputy public defender, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-00391-JCC-TCB) Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: November 24, 2014 Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6781 MARK FAREWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES HINGELEY, public defender; ELIZABETH MURTAGH, deputy public defender, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-00391-JCC-TCB) Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: November 24, 2014 Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior C..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6781
MARK FAREWELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JAMES HINGELEY, public defender; ELIZABETH MURTAGH, deputy
public defender,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:14-cv-00391-JCC-TCB)
Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: November 24, 2014
Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Farewell, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mark Farewell appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(1) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. See Farewell v. Hingeley, No. 1:14-cv-
00391-JCC-TCB (E.D. Va. May 1, 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