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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6682 SEAN KIRBY ROSSER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DAVID B. CARSON, Judge for the Roanoke City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
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6682 SEAN KIRBY ROSSER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DAVID B. CARSON, Judge for the Roanoke City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 Judg..
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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