Filed: Feb. 25, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2191 DAYYAN ATTA BEY EX REL DERICK SEALEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. REX A. DAVIS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (4:15-cv-00087-MSD-LRL) Submitted: February 23, 2016 Decided: February 25, 2016 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2191 DAYYAN ATTA BEY EX REL DERICK SEALEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. REX A. DAVIS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (4:15-cv-00087-MSD-LRL) Submitted: February 23, 2016 Decided: February 25, 2016 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2191
DAYYAN ATTA BEY EX REL DERICK SEALEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
REX A. DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (4:15-cv-00087-MSD-LRL)
Submitted: February 23, 2016 Decided: February 25, 2016
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dayyan Atta Bey ex rel Derick Sealey, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dayyan Atta Bey ex rel Derick Sealey appeals the district
court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. Bey v. Davis, No.
4:15-cv-00087-MSD-LRL (E.D. Va. Sept. 8, 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