Filed: Aug. 12, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6404 CHRISTOPHER RICHARDS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WILLIAM MUSE, Chairman; HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-01472-CMH-JFA) Submitted: July 28, 2015 Decided: August 12, 2015 Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6404 CHRISTOPHER RICHARDS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WILLIAM MUSE, Chairman; HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-01472-CMH-JFA) Submitted: July 28, 2015 Decided: August 12, 2015 Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opi..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6404
CHRISTOPHER RICHARDS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM MUSE, Chairman; HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:13-cv-01472-CMH-JFA)
Submitted: July 28, 2015 Decided: August 12, 2015
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher Richards, Appellant Pro Se. James Milburn Isaacs,
Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Richards appeals the district court’s order
granting Defendants summary judgment in Richards’ 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2012) action. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Specifically, we observe that Richards’
claims with respect to the application of Virginia’s three-
strikes provision are time-barred, and that he has failed to
sufficiently allege any related equal protection claims in his
complaint. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
judgment. See Richards v. Muse, No. 1:13-cv-01472-CMH-JFA (E.D.
Va. Feb. 26, 2015). 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