Benjamin Fawley v. William Johnson et al


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--terminating Motion for other relief [998383973-2] Originating case number: 2:10-cv-00175-MSD-FBS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998419208] [10-6930]

Download PDF
Benjamin Fawley v. William Johnson et al Doc. 0 Case: 10-6930 Document: 14 Date Filed: 09/07/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6930 BENJAMIN WILLIAM FAWLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WILLIAM E. JOHNSON, Esquire; CHRISTOPHER J. COLLINS, Esquire; JOHN S. GILL, Commonwealth Attorney; JOHN C. BULLARO, Special Prosecutor; WILLIAM H. SHAW, III, Judge, Mathews County Circuit Court; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; COUNTY OF MATHEWS, Virginia, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:10-cv-00175-MSD-FBS) Submitted: August 26, 2010 Decided: September 7, 2010 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Benjamin William Fawley, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Case: 10-6930 Document: 14 Date Filed: 09/07/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: Benjamin William Fawley appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b) (2006). no reversible error. We have reviewed the record and find Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons Fawley v. Johnson, No. 2:10-cvWe deny Fawley's motion stated by the district court. 00175-MSD-FBS (E.D. Va. June 24, 2010). to allow documents, and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials would 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?