Chase v. Baskerville
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
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)
November 25, 2008
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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. and find no reversible error. We have reviewed the record
Accordingly, we affirm for the Chase v. Baskerville, No. We dispense with oral
reasons stated by the district court.
3:04-cv-759-HEH (E.D. Va. Aug. 2, 2007).
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?