Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Justin Cote-Stokes v. S.G. Satterthwaite, 14-7885 (2015)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 14-7885 Visitors: 11
Filed: Mar. 20, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7885 JUSTIN COTE-STOKES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. S. G. SATTERTHWAITE, Norfolk Deputy, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-01039-TSE-JFA) Submitted: March 17, 2015 Decided: March 20, 2015 Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per
More
                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 14-7885


JUSTIN COTE-STOKES,

                Plaintiff - Appellant,

          v.

S. G. SATTERTHWAITE, Norfolk Deputy,

                Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the    Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.   T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:14-cv-01039-TSE-JFA)


Submitted:   March 17, 2015                 Decided:   March 20, 2015


Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Justin Cote-Stokes, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Justin   Cote-Stokes    appeals      the    district      court’s    order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action for failing to

comply with the district court’s prior order directing Cote-

Stokes to provide the district court with: (1) evidence that he

fully exhausted his administrative remedies; and (2) a signed

consent to collection of fees from his prison trust account.                  We

have     reviewed   the   record      and   find    no   reversible        error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court.     Cote-Stokes v. Satterthwaite, No. 1:14-cv-01039-TSE-JFA

(E.D. Va. Dec. 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

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