Donald Andrews, Jr. v. Wolcott Gate

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00076-HEH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999491798]. Mailed to: appellant. [14-1763]

Appeal: 14-1763

Doc: 13

Filed: 12/12/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1763

DONALD ANDREWS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
WOLCOTT RIVERS GATES; W. BRANTLEY BASNIGHT; DAVID M.
BASTIAANS; RICHARD E. BIEMILLER; STEVEN L. BROWN; ADAM M.
CARROLL; BARRY DORANS; CARL A. EASON; CHESHIRE I’ANSON
EVELEIGH; JOHN F. FABER; RONALD M. GATES; AMEET I. HABIB;
DOUGLAS E. KAHLE; KYLE D. KORTE; STEPHAN J. LIPSKIS;
SAMUEL W. MEEKINS; MARK V. PASCUCCI; M. POWELL PETERS;
STEPHEN P. PFEIFFER; ANTHONY F. RADD; DAVID N. REDA;
CARTWRIGHT R. REILLY; WILSON L. RIVERS; GLEN M. ROBERTSON;
C. ARTHUR ROBINSON; JOHN F. SAWYER; CULLEN D. SPECKHART;
LESLIE R. WATSON; MARSHALL A. WINSLOW; EDWARD W. WOLCOTT;
BRANDON H. ZEIGLER,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:14-cv-00076-HEH)

Submitted:

December 9, 2014

Decided:

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

December 12, 2014

Appeal: 14-1763

Doc: 13

Filed: 12/12/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

Donald Andrews, Appellant Pro Se. Brendan David
WILLIAMS MULLEN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

O’Toole,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-1763

Doc: 13

Filed: 12/12/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Donald W. Andrews, Jr., appeals the district court’s
order

dismissing

this

action

alleging

malicious

extortion, RICO violations and mail fraud.
record and find no reversible error.

prosecution,

We have reviewed the

Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court.

Andrews v. Wolcott

Rivers Gates, No. 3:14-cv-00076-HEH (E.D. Va. July 3, 2014).
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3