Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
02-6513•Travis L. Davenport v. OFFICER JOHNSON, Boothworker
02-6513Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit22.08.2002
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6513
TRAVIS L. DAVENPORT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
OFFICER JOHNSON, Boothworker,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
REESE ROBBINS, Col. Head of Securities;
LIEUTENANT SHELL, Shift Commander; LIEUTENANT
JONES; MAJOR ALLEN,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. W. Curtis Sewell, Magistrate
Judge. (CA-00-810-A)
Submitted: June 25, 2002 Decided: August 22, 2002
Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Travis L. Davenport, Appellant Pro Se. Frank Fletcher Rennie, IV,
COWAN & OWEN, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Travis L. Davenport appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of
the district court. See Davenport v. Johnson, No. CA-00-810-A (E.D.
Va. Mar. 20, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.