Filed: Mar. 26, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-7216 DAN HAENDEL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ANNA REED, Assistant Commonwealth Attorney City of Staunton; BB CULLY, Police Officer, City of Staunton; RAYMOND C. ROBERTSON, Commonwealth Attorney, City of Staunton; JIM WILLIAMS, Chief of Police, City of Staunton; MARK R. HERRING, Attorney General Commonwealth of Virginia; HOWARD W. CLARKE, Director Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the Uni
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-7216 DAN HAENDEL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ANNA REED, Assistant Commonwealth Attorney City of Staunton; BB CULLY, Police Officer, City of Staunton; RAYMOND C. ROBERTSON, Commonwealth Attorney, City of Staunton; JIM WILLIAMS, Chief of Police, City of Staunton; MARK R. HERRING, Attorney General Commonwealth of Virginia; HOWARD W. CLARKE, Director Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the Unit..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-7216
DAN HAENDEL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ANNA REED, Assistant Commonwealth Attorney City of Staunton; BB CULLY,
Police Officer, City of Staunton; RAYMOND C. ROBERTSON, Commonwealth
Attorney, City of Staunton; JIM WILLIAMS, Chief of Police, City of Staunton;
MARK R. HERRING, Attorney General Commonwealth of Virginia; HOWARD
W. CLARKE, Director Virginia Department of Corrections,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:17-cv-00119-JLK-RSB)
Submitted: February 28, 2019 Decided: March 26, 2019
Before KING and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dan Haendel, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dan Haendel appeals the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. Haendel v. Reed, No. 7:17-cv-00119-JLK-RSB (W.D. Va.
Feb. 13, 2018; Sept. 10, 2018). 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