The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
05-7313•Gary Buterra Williams v. the City of Richmond
05-7313Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitFeb 27, 2006
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7313
GARY BUTERRA WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
THE CITY OF RICHMOND; THE COUNTY OF HENRICO;
T. A. VLIET, Police Officer, Henrico County;
SARAH JESSIE, Detective, Henrico County
Police; SEAN ADAMS, Sgt., City of Richmond
Police; MS. TRAVERS, Nurse, Henrico Doctors
Hospital; DEBORAH MEADE-JACKSON, Magistrate,
City of Richmond; ANNE B. HOLTON, Judge,
General District Court; KEVIN NUNNALLY,
Assistant Commonwealth Attorney, City of
Richmond; BRADLEY CAVEDO, Judge, City of
Richmond Circuit Court; VICKY B. GEORGE,
Deputy Clerk, Virginia Court of Appeals; D.
DAVIS, Clerks Assistant, Virginia Court of
Appeals; VIETTA PARSONS, Public Defender; SARA
GABORIK, Public Defender; DIANE ABATO, Deputy
Commonwealth Attorney, City of Richmond,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CA-04-747-3)
Submitted: January 23, 2006 Decided: February 27, 2006
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
-- 1 of 3 --
- 2 -
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary Buterra Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 2 of 3 --
- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Gary Buterra Williams appeals the district court’s order
denying relief without prejudice on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000)
complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the
reasoning of the district court. See Williams v. City of Richmond,
No. CA-04-747-3 (E.D. Va. Aug. 17, 2005). 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 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.