Kelvin Simmons v. Mary J. Huff, formerly known as Mary H. Simmons

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1515
KELVIN SIMMONS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MARY J. HUFF, formerly known as Mary H.
Simmons; LINDA STARKE, Social Worker,
Chesterfield/Colonial Heights Department of
Social Services; CHESTERFIELD/COLONIAL HEIGHTS
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; PAMELA MOSELEY,
Social Worker, Virginia Department of Social
Services, Henrico District Office; S.
HINTON-MCRAE, Support Enforcement Specialist,
Virginia Department of Social Services,
Henrico District Office; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF SOCIAL SERVICES; COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD,
VIRGINIA; CHESTERFIELD COUNTY COMMONWEALTH
ATTORNEY OFFICE; MARY E. LANGER; ELIZABETH
SMYERS, Office of the Commonwealth Attorney;
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; R. D.
ASH, Detective, #646; J. T. WILLIAMS, Officer,
#449, Chesterfield County Police Department;
THOMAS J. LOVING,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (CA-03-90-3)
Submitted: July 24, 2003 Decided: July 29, 2003

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kelvin Simmons, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Vaughan Sommers,
HAIRFIELD, MORTON, WATSON & ADAMS, P.L.C., Richmond, Virginia;
Steven Latham Micas, County Attorney, Michael Steven Jonas Chernau,
COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Chesterfield, Virginia; Andrew Cameron
O’Brion, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia; Joshua Noah Lief, SANDS, ANDERSON, MARKS & MILLER,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kelvin Simmons appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his civil complaints. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. See Simmons v. Huff, No. CA-03-90-3
(E.D. Va. Apr. 18, 2003). 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 --