Richie Williams v. Gordon Willi


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to correct the record [1000129553-2], denying Motion to amend the complaint [1000136298-2]. Originating case number: 1:17-cv-00173-CMH-IDD. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [1000166680]. Mailed to: Richie Leo Williams. [17-6919]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-6919 Doc: 14 Filed: 10/03/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6919 RICHIE LEO WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GORDON F. WILLIS, Circuit Court Judge; TARA BETH COLEMAN, Attorney; FREDERICKSBURG CIRCUIT COURT; KEVIN D. GROSS, Assistant Commonwealth Attorney; KING GEORGE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-00173-CMH-IDD) Submitted: September 28, 2017 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richie Leo Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Decided: October 3, 2017 Appeal: 17-6919 Doc: 14 Filed: 10/03/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Richie Leo Williams appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Williams v. Willis, No. 1:17-cv-00173-CMH-IDD (E.D. Va. June 30, 2017). We also deny Williams’ motions to correct the record and to amend the complaint. 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?