Chase v. Baskerville

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: December 31, 2008
• Docket: 07-7258
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7258

WESLEY CHASE,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Intervenor/Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ALTON BASKERVILLE, Warden of the Powhatan Correctional Center, he is sued in his personal and official capacities; PARKER, Ms., Principal of the Powhatan Correctional Center, she is sued in her personal and official capacities; P. M. HENICK, Regional Ombudsman, Virginia Department of Corrections, he or she is sued within he or she personal and official capacities; S. TRIMMER, Ms., Special Education, director for the Virginia Department of Education, she is sued in her personal and official capacities,

Defendants – Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:04-cv-759-HEH)

Submitted: November 25, 2008 Decided: December 31, 2008

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark R. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, William Eugene Thro, Special Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. Wesley Chase, Appellee Pro Se. Sarah Elaine Harrington, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Robert P. McIntosh, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for the United States.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal the district court’s order denying

their motion to dismiss Appellee’s Rehabilitation Act claims on

the basis of sovereign immunity. We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. Chase v. Baskerville, No.

3:04-cv-759-HEH (E.D. Va. Aug. 2, 2007). 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