James C. Powell v. City of Norfolk, a Municipal Corporation

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1820
JAMES C. POWELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CITY OF NORFOLK, a Municipal Corporation; City
of Norfolk Police Department, a Division
thereof; HAROLD P. JUREN, individually and in
his official capacity as Deputy City Attorney
for the City of Norfolk; HENRY P. HENSON,
individually and in his official capacity as
Police Chief of the City of Norfolk; CURTIS
TODD, JR., individually and in his official
capacity as Lieutenant of the Police Depart-
ment of the City of Norfolk; JAMES BROWNLIE,
individually and in his official capacity as
Sergeant of the Police Department for the City
of Norfolk; CITY OF NORFOLK POLICE DEPARTMENT;
CITY OF NORFOLK ATTORNEY'S OFFICE; CITY OF
NORFOLK COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, a
division thereof,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
JOHNNY E. MORRISON, individually and in his
official capacity as Commonwealth Attorney for
the City of Portsmouth; WILLIAM F. RUTHERFORD,
individually and in his official capacity as
Commonwealth Attorney for the City of Norfolk;
CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, a municipal corporation;
CITY OF PORTSMOUTH COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE, a division thereof,
Defendants.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-99-2114-2)
Submitted: September 21, 2000 Decided: September 27, 2000
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James C. Powell, Appellant Pro Se. Rebecca McFerren King, John
Yulee Richardson, Jr., CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Norfolk, Virginia,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
James C. Powell appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint and
denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the rec-
ord and the district court’s opinions and orders and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court. See Powell v. City of Norfolk, No. CA-99-2114-2
(E.D. Va. May 23, 2000, June 2, 2000 & July 19, 2000). 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

-- 3 of 3 --