Filed: Mar. 19, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1771 BRIAN DAVISON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES PLOWMAN, In his official capacity as Attorney for the Commonwealth for Loudoun County, Virginia, and individually, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-00180-JCC-IDD) Submitted: March 13, 2018 Decided: March 19, 2018 Before AGEE, WYNN, and H
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1771 BRIAN DAVISON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES PLOWMAN, In his official capacity as Attorney for the Commonwealth for Loudoun County, Virginia, and individually, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-00180-JCC-IDD) Submitted: March 13, 2018 Decided: March 19, 2018 Before AGEE, WYNN, and HA..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1771
BRIAN DAVISON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JAMES PLOWMAN, In his official capacity as Attorney for the Commonwealth
for Loudoun County, Virginia, and individually,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-00180-JCC-IDD)
Submitted: March 13, 2018 Decided: March 19, 2018
Before AGEE, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian Davison, Appellant Pro Se. James W. Hundley, BRIGLIA HUNDLEY NUTALL
& LOPEZ, P.C., Vienna, Virginia; Kristin Anne Zech, BRIGLIAHUNDLEY, PC,
Tysons Corner, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Brian Davison appeals the district court’s judgment in favor of James Plowman
following a bench trial in Davison’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court. Davison v. Plowman,
247 F. Supp. 3d 767 (E.D. Va. 2017). 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