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)
10-6930•Benjamin William Fawley v. WILLIAM E. JOHNSON, Esquire
10-6930Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitSep 7, 2010
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6930
BENJAMIN WILLIAM FAWLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM E. JOHNSON, Esquire; CHRISTOPHER J. COLLINS,
Esquire; JOHN S. GILL, Commonwealth Attorney; JOHN C.
BULLARO, Special Prosecutor; WILLIAM H. SHAW, III, Judge,
Mathews County Circuit Court; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA;
COUNTY OF MATHEWS, Virginia,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:10-cv-00175-MSD-FBS)
Submitted: August 26, 2010 Decided: September 7, 2010
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin William Fawley, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Benjamin William Fawley appeals the district court’s
order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. Fawley v. Johnson, No. 2:10-cv-
00175-MSD-FBS (E.D. Va. June 24, 2010). We deny Fawley’s motion
to allow documents, and 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 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.