Williams v. City of Richmond

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 27, 2006
Docket05-7313
StatusUnpublished

This text of Williams v. City of Richmond (Williams v. City of Richmond) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Williams v. City of Richmond, (4th Cir. 2006).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7313

GARY BUTERRA WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

THE CITY OF RICHMOND; THE COUNTY OF HENRICO; T. A. VLIET, Police Officer, Henrico County; SARAH JESSIE, Detective, Henrico County Police; SEAN ADAMS, Sgt., City of Richmond Police; MS. TRAVERS, Nurse, Henrico Doctors Hospital; DEBORAH MEADE-JACKSON, Magistrate, City of Richmond; ANNE B. HOLTON, Judge, General District Court; KEVIN NUNNALLY, Assistant Commonwealth Attorney, City of Richmond; BRADLEY CAVEDO, Judge, City of Richmond Circuit Court; VICKY B. GEORGE, Deputy Clerk, Virginia Court of Appeals; D. DAVIS, Clerks Assistant, Virginia Court of Appeals; VIETTA PARSONS, Public Defender; SARA GABORIK, Public Defender; DIANE ABATO, Deputy Commonwealth Attorney, City of Richmond,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-04-747-3)

Submitted: January 23, 2006 Decided: February 27, 2006

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary Buterra Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

Gary Buterra Williams appeals the district court’s order

denying relief without prejudice on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000)

complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. See Williams v. City of Richmond,

No. CA-04-747-3 (E.D. Va. Aug. 17, 2005). 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

- 3 -

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

§ 1915A
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Williams v. City of Richmond, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-city-of-richmond-ca4-2006.