Chase Hunter v. Paul Higg

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:12-cv-00513-JAG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998949117]. Mailed to: Hunter. [12-1971]

Appeal: 12-1971

Doc: 20

Filed: 10/01/2012

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1971

CHASE CARMEN HUNTER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PAUL W. HIGGS, individually and in his official capacity as
Sheriff of the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia; WILLIAM
REYES, III, individually and in his official capacity as a
Deputy for the City of Fredericksburg Sheriff and in his
official capacity as a paid worker for the City of
Fredericksburg;
CITY
OF
FREDERICKSBURG,
VA;
NICHOLAS
TALBERT, individually and in his official capacity as an
employee for the City of Fredericksburg Sheriff and in his
official capacity as a paid worker for the City of
Fredericksburg,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
John A. Gibney, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:12-cv-00513-JAG)

Submitted:

September 27, 2012

Decided:

October 1, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chase Carmen Hunter, Appellant Pro Se. Grant Edward Kronenberg,
MORRIS & MORRIS, Richmond, Virginia; Medford Jennings Brown, IV,
Jennifer
Lee
Parrish,
PARRISH,
HOUCK
&
SNEAD,
PLC,
Fredericksburg, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-1971

Doc: 20

Filed: 10/01/2012

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Chase Carmen Hunter appeals the district court’s order
granting Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss
her complaint and its order denying her motion for appointment
of counsel.
error.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court.
Va.

July

24,

Hunter v. Higgs, No. 3:12-cv-00513-JAG (E.D.

2012;

Aug.

6,

2012).

We

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

2