Momolu Sirleaf, Jr. v. Eddie Pearson


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:15-cv-00301-MHL-RCY. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [1000158704]. Mailed to: Momolu V.S. Sirleaf. [17-6273]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-6273 Doc: 10 Filed: 09/20/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6273 MOMOLU V.S. SIRLEAF, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. EDDIE PEARSON, sued individually and in official capacity; JARRATT, Colonel, sued individually and in official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:15-cv-00301-MHL-RCY) Submitted: August 28, 2017 Decided: September 20, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Momolu V.S. Sirleaf, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jessica Leigh Berdichevsky, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-6273 Doc: 10 Filed: 09/20/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Momolu V.S. Sirleaf, Jr., appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Defendants and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Sirleaf v. Pearson, No. 3:15-cv-00301-MHLRCY (E.D. Va. Feb. 16, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?