Samuel Davis, Jr. v. City of Newport News, Virginia

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:10-cv-00033-RBS-TEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998449272] [10-1820]

Download PDF
Samuel Davis, Jr. v. City of Newport News, Virginia Doc. 0 Case: 10-1820 Document: 11 Date Filed: 10/20/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1820 SAMUEL B. DAVIS., JR., Plaintiff Appellant, v. CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA; ESTATE OF GLADYS LOUISE BARCLAY, Successor in Interest to Louise Barclay Davis, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (4:10-cv-00033-TEM) Submitted: October 14, 2010 Decided: October 20, 2010 Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel B. Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Marc Ericson Darnell, KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Dockets.Justia.com Case: 10-1820 Document: 11 Date Filed: 10/20/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: Samuel B. Davis, Jr., appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) complaint as time barred. analogous applied The district court concluded that Davis's complaint was to a Virginia state law claim of of personal injury, for a Virginia's two-year statute limitations personal injury claim, and dismissed as time barred. The court also noted it may lack jurisdiction in light of the nature of the relief Davis seeks. After district court reviewing lacked the record, we over conclude Davis's that the jurisdiction complaint because of the nature of the relief sought. Davis essentially asked the district court to set aside unfavorable state court judgments. jurisdiction Davis has not the identified district any grant to do of so, federal and we allowing court conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and oral argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

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?