Merle T. Rutledge, Jr. v. City of Danville, Va

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999266761-2] Originating case number: 4:13-cv-00066-JLK Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999339818]. Mailed to: Rutledge. [13-2494]

Appeal: 13-2494

Doc: 11

Filed: 04/21/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2494

MERLE T. RUTLEDGE, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF DANVILLE, VA; CAPTAIN T. E. MERRICKS, police officer
of the City of Danville, Va, in his individual and official
capacity; RENEE BURTON, senior planner for the City of
Danville, Va, in her individual and official capacity;
KENNETH C. GILLIE, JR., Director of Planning for the City of
Danville, Va, in his individual and official capacity; JOE
KING, Danville, Va City Manager, in his individual and
official capacity; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; SHERMAN M.
SAUNDERS, Danville, Va Mayor in his individual and official
capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Danville.
Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (4:13-cv-00066-JLK)

Submitted:

April 17, 2014

Decided:

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Merle T. Rutledge, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

April 21, 2014

Appeal: 13-2494

Doc: 11

Filed: 04/21/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 13-2494

Doc: 11

Filed: 04/21/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Merle T. Rutledge, Jr., appeals the district court’s
order imposing a pre-filing injunction and the court’s opinion
dismissing his civil action.

We have reviewed the record and

find

Accordingly,

no

reversible

error.

although

we

grant

Rutledge leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court.

See Rutledge v.

City of Danville, No. 4:13-cv-00066-JLK (W.D. Va. Dec. 9 & Dec.
20, 2013).
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

3