Quirin Weatherspoon v. Lorin Hay

Filing 920100216

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7435

QUIRIN WEATHERSPOON, Plaintiff ­ Appellant, v. LORIN DANIEL HAY; PATRICIA WEST, Chief Judge of Virginia Beach Circuit Court; WALTER S. FELTUN, Chief Judge of the Virginia Court of Appeals; LARRY G. ELDER, Judge of the Virginia Court of Appeals; ROBERT P. FRANK, Judge of the Virginia Court of Appeals; SAM W. COLEMAN, III, Senior Judge of the Virginia Court of Appeals; LEROY F. ROUNDTREE HASSEL, SR., Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia; CYNTHIA D. KINSER, Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia; LEROY FRANCIS MILLETTE, JR., Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia; DONALD W. LEMONS, Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia; S. BERNARD GOODWYN, Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia; BARBARA MILANO KEEAN, Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia; LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR., Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia; VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, John Cook and Ellett Ohree, receiving agents of this department; VIRGINIA STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION, Attention Commissioners, Harold Robertson, receiving agent of this department, Defendants ­ Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cv-00732-CMH-IDD)

Submitted:

November 13, 2009

Decided:

February 16, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Quirin Weatherspoon, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM: Quirin Weatherspoon appeals the district court's order dismissing his complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2006), as frivolous. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. pending motions

Accordingly, we deny all of Weatherspoon's and affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court.

Weatherspoon v. Hay, No. 1:09-cv-00732-CMH-IDD We

(E.D. Va. filed July 16, 2009 & entered July 17, 2009). 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