Filed: Jan. 21, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7534 KEITH EARL GODWIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HAROLD CLARKE, Director; ROBERT F. HALEY, II, Commonwealth Attorney; CHESAPEAKE CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:13-cv-00691-RAJ-TEM) Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 21, 2015 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judg
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7534 KEITH EARL GODWIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HAROLD CLARKE, Director; ROBERT F. HALEY, II, Commonwealth Attorney; CHESAPEAKE CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:13-cv-00691-RAJ-TEM) Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 21, 2015 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7534
KEITH EARL GODWIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE, Director; ROBERT F. HALEY, II, Commonwealth
Attorney; CHESAPEAKE CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:13-cv-00691-RAJ-TEM)
Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 21, 2015
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Keith Earl Godwin, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Keith Earl Godwin appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his civil action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Godwin v. Clarke, No. 2:13-cv-00691-RAJ-TEM
(E.D. Va. Sept. 25, 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