Herbin v. Hoeffel
Herbin v. Hoeffel
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6718
JERVON L. HERBIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JANET C. HOEFFEL, Staff Attorney, D.C. Public Defender Service; JO-ANN WALLACE, Director, D.C. Public Defender Service; ANITA M. JOSEY, Deputy Director, D.C. Public Defender Service; MICHELLE A. ROBERTS, Chairperson, D.C. Public Defender Service Board of Trustees; CONSTANCE T. O'BRYANT, Vice Chairperson, D.C. Public De- fender Service Board of Trustees; FRANCIS D. CARTER, Member, D.C. Public Defender Service Board of Trustees; ANTHONY MATTHEWS, Staff Attorney, D.C. Public Defender Service; KARIN H. CATHER, Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney, Loudoun County, Virginia; OWEN D. BASHAM, Dep- uty Commonwealth's Attorney, Loudoun County, Virginia; STEVE SIMPSON, Sheriff, Loudoun County, Virginia; KENNETH FOGNANO, Detective/ Investigator, Loudoun County Sheriff's Depart- ment; JEROME L. HICKMAN, Lieutenant, Loudoun County Sheriff's Department; JOHN BUCKMAN, Sergeant, Loudoun County Sheriff's Department; MARK DAVIS, Lieutenant, Loudoun County Sher- iff's Department,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-98-233-AM) Submitted: November 5, 1998 Decided: November 19, 1998
Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jervon L. Herbin, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jervon Herbin appeals from the district court’s order denying
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. Herbin v. Hoeffel, No. CA-98-233-AM (E.D. Va. Mar.
25, 1998). We 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- Unpublished