Filed: Feb. 02, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7319 DON C. NEWBY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. J. R. BROOKS, Officer, Individually and in his Official Capacity, Suffolk Police Department, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:16-cv-00944-JAG) Submitted: January 30, 2018 Decided: February 2, 2018 Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7319 DON C. NEWBY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. J. R. BROOKS, Officer, Individually and in his Official Capacity, Suffolk Police Department, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:16-cv-00944-JAG) Submitted: January 30, 2018 Decided: February 2, 2018 Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-7319
DON C. NEWBY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
J. R. BROOKS, Officer, Individually and in his Official Capacity, Suffolk Police
Department,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:16-cv-00944-JAG)
Submitted: January 30, 2018 Decided: February 2, 2018
Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Don Cornelius Newby, Appellant Pro Se. Emily Paige Bishop, Jeremy David Capps,
HARMAN CLAYTOR CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, P.C., Glen Allen, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Don C. Newby appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to
dismiss Newby’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action alleging the Defendant violated his
Fourth Amendment rights. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Newby v. Brooks,
No. 3:16-cv-00944-JAG (E.D. Va. Sept. 28, 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