U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2012

Donald Keck, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Donald Keck, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided April 2, 2012

Donald Keck, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-2191

DONALD P. KECK, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; GENE JOHNSON, in his Official and Individual Capacities; WILLIAM ROGERS, a/k/a Buck; JOHN B.

TAYLOR; ROBIN HULBERT; PAUL BROUGHTON; NICK BRAUGHTON; G. K.

WASHINGTON; KATHY BRAME; EDDIE PEARSON; TAMMIE ESTEP; ERIC BRAEN; KENNY MOORE; BEATRICE ANDERSON; ELIZABETH THORNTON; DOUG SMITH; KAREN HARDWICK; STEVE WERBY; KEVIN BIRCHAM; GARY DURHAM; CLAUDIA FARR, in her Official and Individual Capacities; JOHN V. ROBINSON, in his Official and Individual Capacities; SARAH R. WILSON, in her Official and Individual Capacities; ERNEST G. SPRATLEY, in her Official and Individual Capacities, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:10-cv-00555-REP-MHL)

Submitted: March 29, 2012 Decided: April 2, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald P. Keck, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Sydney Edmund Rab, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Mary Elizabeth Davis, SPOTTS FAIN, PC, Richmond, Virginia; Joshua Paul Hanbury, George Peter Sibley, III, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Donald P. Keck, Jr., appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny his several federal and state law claims against Defendants. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Keck v. Virginia, No. 3:10-cv-00555-REP-MHL (E.D. Va. Sept. 30, 2011).

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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.