Paul Thompson, Jr. v. M. Wade

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for summary disposition (Local Rule 27(f)) [998545018-2] Originating case number: 2:10-cv-00174-RBS-TEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998602289]. Mailed to: appellant Paul Thompson. [11-6233]

Appeal: 11-6233

Document: 22

Date Filed: 06/01/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6233

PAUL CLEVELAND THOMPSON, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
M. WADE, Sheriff; D. ROYAL, Supervisor Classification; MR.
WALKER, Classification and others to be named later; DEPUTY
FERGUSON,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of Virginia
Corrections
(DOC)
in
their
individual
capacities; HENRICO COUNTY MUNICIPALITY,

Department of
and
official

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (2:10-cv-00174-RBS-TEM)

Submitted:

May 26, 2011

Decided:

June 1, 2011

Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul Cleveland Thompson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Lisa H. Leiner,
HARMAN, CLAYTOR, CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appeal: 11-6233

Document: 22

Date Filed: 06/01/2011

Page: 2 of 3

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 11-6233

Document: 22

Date Filed: 06/01/2011

Page: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Paul Cleveland Thompson appeals the district court’s
order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint.
We

have

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

reversible

error.

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

Thompson v. Wade, No. 2:10-cv-00174-RBS-TEM (E.D. Va.

Jan. 18, 2011).

We deny Thompson’s motion for a declaratory

judgment and for a preliminary and a permanent injunction.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

We

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3