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)
09-6307•Antonio Saunders v. Sgt. Nichols; Officer Dixon
09-6307Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 13, 2009
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6307
ANTONIO SAUNDERS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
SGT. NICHOLS; OFFICER DIXON,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
JOHN DOE CLASSIFICATION OFFICERS; JANE DOE CLASSIFICATION
OFFICERS; JOHN DOE OFFICERS, defendants are being sued each
in their individual and official capacities,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:08-cv-01160-LMB-TCB)
Submitted: October 2, 2009 Decided: October 13, 2009
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Antonio Saunders, Appellant Pro Se. Jeff W. Rosen, PENDER &
COWARD, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees.
-- 1 of 3 --
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Saunders appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Saunders v. Nichols, No. 1:08-cv-01160-LMB-TCB (E.D. Va.
filed Jan. 22, 2009; entered Jan. 23, 2009). 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.