Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Sean Rosser v. David Carson, 19-6682 (2019)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 19-6682 Visitors: 58
Filed: Sep. 27, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6682 SEAN KIRBY ROSSER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DAVID B. CARSON, Judge for the Roanoke City Courthouse, sued individually and in his official capacity, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (7:19-cv-00156-NKM-JCH) Submitted: September 24, 2019 Decided: September 27, 2019 Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Jud
More
                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                       No. 19-6682


SEAN KIRBY ROSSER,

                    Plaintiff - Appellant,

             v.

DAVID B. CARSON, Judge for the Roanoke City Courthouse, sued individually and
in his official capacity,

                    Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (7:19-cv-00156-NKM-JCH)


Submitted: September 24, 2019                               Decided: September 27, 2019


Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Sean Kirby Rosser, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Sean Kirby Rosser appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Rosser v. Carson,

No. 7:19-cv-00156-NKM-JCH (W.D. Va., April 3, 2019). 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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer