Roy Miller v. Thomas Dew
Roy Miller v. Thomas Dew
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1404
ROY E. MILLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THOMAS R. DEW, Sued individually and in his official capacity; STEPHEN ROYALTY, Sued individually and in his official capacity; HOLLI S. REEVES, Sued individually and in his official capacity; PETER L. TRIBLE, Sued individually and in his official capacity, Defendants - Appellees, and DAVID T. PARRISH, Sued individually and in his official capacity; RONALD B. LECARPENTIER, Sued individually and in his official capacity; JOHN DOE #1, Sued individually and in his official capacity; JOHN DOE #2, Sued individually and in his official capacity; JOHN DOE #3, Sued individually and in his official capacity; JOHN DOE #4, Sued individually and in his official capacity; DAVID R. HINES, Sued individually and in his official capacity; HANOVER COUNTY; JOSEPH D. WINFREE, Sued individually and in his official capacity, Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:12-cv-00873-HEH)
Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 3, 2013 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roy E. Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Farnaz Farkish, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; William Fisher Etherington, Leslie A. Winneberger, BEALE, DAVIDSON, ETHERINGTON & MORRIS, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Roy E. Miller appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his claims against several defendants on grounds of immunity. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Miller v. Parrish, No. 3:12-cv-00873-HEH (E.D.
Va. Feb. 13, 2013; Mar. 20, 2013). 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
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.