Momolu Sirleaf, Jr. v. Eddie Pearson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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