Robin W. Vanderwall v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 1994 , he claims that the allegedly improperly seized…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6307
ROBIN W. VANDERWALL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH; ALFRED M. JACOCKS,
Chief of Police; K. A. SPIVEY, Detective,
Virginia Beach Police Department; L. M. KINCH,
Detective, Computer Crimes Unit; T. M. AIKEN,
Forensic Technician, Virginia Beach Police
Department; M. E. ENCARNACAO, Computer Crimes
Specialist, Virginia Beach Police Department;
JERRY KILGORE, Attorney General, Commonwealth
of Virginia; SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, Office of the
Attorney General, Commonwealth of Virginia;
JOHN R. DOYLE, III, Commonwealth's Attorney,
City of Norfolk; JILL C., Assistant
Commonwealth’s Attorney; JANET L. WESTBROOK,
Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney; JOHN DOE,
Unknown Computer User,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CA-05-50-1)
Submitted: June 23, 2005 Decided: June 30, 2005
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
Robin W. Vanderwall, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

*Even if Vanderwall’s claims were not barred by Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), he claims that the allegedly
improperly seized internet communications were not his; therefore
he has no right to challenge the seizure. In any event, the record
supports no claim of a Fourth Amendment violation.
- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Robin W. Vanderwall appeals the district court’s order
denying relief without prejudice on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000)
complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of
the district court. * See Vanderwall v. City of Va. Beach, No. CA-
05-50-1 (E.D. Va. Feb. 16, 2005). We deny Vanderwall’s motion for
appointment of counsel and 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

-- 3 of 3 --