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)
07-6054•Lemar J. Anderson v. ROBERT J. HUMPHRES, Commonwealth Attorney, in his individual or personal capacity
07-6054Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJul 12, 2007
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6054
LEMAR J. ANDERSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ROBERT J. HUMPHRES, Commonwealth Attorney, in
his individual or personal capacity; SCOTT
VACHRIS, Commonwealth Attorney, in his
individual or personal capacity; SHARON
MAJEWSKI, Commonwealth Attorney, in her
individual or personal capacity; HARVEY L.
BRYANT, III, Commonwealth Attorney, in his
individual or personal capacity; JOHN T. ORR,
Detective, Police Officer for Virginia Beach
Police Department, in his individual or
personal capacity; DENNIS ARMAND HERBERT,
Detective, Police Officer for Virginia Beach
Police Department, in his individual or
personal capacity; HONORABLE THOMAS H.
PADRICK, JR., Judge, Second Judicial Circuit,
in his individual or personal capacity; THE
VIRGINIA BEACH CITY JAIL CHIEF OVERSEE, in its
individual or personal capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (1:06-cv-00653)
Submitted: June 25, 2007 Decided: July 12, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit
Judges.
-- 1 of 3 --
- 2 -
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lemar J. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Lemar J. Anderson appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint as barred by the
applicable two-year statute of limitations. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. Anderson v. Humphres,
No. 1:06-cv-00653 (E.D. Va. Dec. 7, 2006). We deny Anderson’s
motion for appointment of counsel. 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.