Michael Scott v. City of Norfolk

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:10-cv-00611-RAJ-DEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998794463]. Mailed to: Scott. [11-2203]

Appeal: 11-2203

Document: 11

Date Filed: 02/23/2012

Page: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-2203

MICHAEL A. SCOTT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF NORFOLK; REGINA V.K. WILLIAMS; BERNARD A. PISHKO; K.
HANNAN; S. MICHAEL; E. ZYSK,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:10-cv-00611-RAJ-DEM)

Submitted:

February 14, 2012

Decided:

February 23, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael A. Scott, Appellant Pro Se.
Melvin Wayne Ringer, CITY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-2203

Document: 11

Date Filed: 02/23/2012

Page: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Michael A. Scott appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint.
have

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

reversible

We

error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.
(E.D.

Scott
Va.

v.

Sept.

City

30,

of

2011).

Norfolk,
We

No.

dispense

2:10-cv-00611-RAJ-DEM
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

2