Skipwith v. Whitehurst
Skipwith v. Whitehurst
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6855
JAMES B. SKIPWITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JOHN WHITEHURST, Commonwealth Attorney,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-592-2)
Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 15, 1998
Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James B. Skipwith, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:
James B. Skipwith appeals from the district court’s order de-
nying relief on his
42 U.S.C.A. § 1983(West Supp. 1998) complaint.
We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning
of the district court. Skipwith v. Whitehurst, No. CA-98-592-2
(E.D. Va. June 8, 1998). We deny Skipwith’s motion for appointment
of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished