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)
11-1198•Greg Givens v. Mitch Tolson; Richard A. Hayhurst; Richard M. Adams, Sr.; Jane Doe I; John Doe I
11-1198Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitAug 1, 2011
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1198
GREG GIVENS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MITCH TOLSON; RICHARD A. HAYHURST; RICHARD M. ADAMS, SR.;
JANE DOE I; JOHN DOE I,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:10-cv-00909-HEH)
Submitted: July 28, 2011 Decided: August 1, 2011
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Greg Givens, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Greg Givens appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Givens v. Tolson, No. 3:10-cv-00909-HEH
(E.D. Va. Jan. 10, 2011). 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 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.