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)
13-6437•Derek Curtis v. KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI, II, Attorney General
13-6437Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJul 23, 2013
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6437
DEREK CURTIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI, II, Attorney General; PAUL EBERT,
Esquire, Commonwealth Attorney; JEANICE WEITHOP, Esq. Asst.
Commonwealth Attorney; ANGELA HORAN, County Attorney;
COLONEL MELETUS, Superintendent; CHERYL ANN WALTON, CAC;
CAPTAIN GEORGE HURLOCK, Director of Security; CHARLIE DEAN,
Chief of Police; HEATHER DARLING, Detective; SERGEANT
BREWER, Deputy Sheriff; OFFICER PEACEMAKER, Deputy Sheriff;
CAROLYN OLIVER, Social Worker II; SERGEANT LAUREL WHITAKER,
Supervisor,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
CHERYL WALTON, Attorney; UNKNOWN CORRECTIONAL OFFICER,
Prince William County Regional Adult Detention Center;
BRANT, Correctional Officer; TED BODIE, Attorney,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:12-cv-00296-CMH-IDD)
Submitted: July 18, 2013 Decided: July 23, 2013
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Derek Curtis, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Derek Curtis 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. Curtis v. Cuccinelli, No. 1:12-cv-00296-
CMH-IDD (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 19 & entered Feb. 21, 2013). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.