Roy E. Miller v. THOMAS R. DEW, Sued individually

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1404
ROY E. MILLER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THOMAS R. DEW, Sued individually and in his official
capacity; STEPHEN ROYALTY, Sued individually and in his
official capacity; HOLLI S. REEVES, Sued individually and in
his official capacity; PETER L. TRIBLE, Sued individually
and in his official capacity,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
DAVID T. PARRISH, Sued individually and in his official
capacity; RONALD B. LECARPENTIER, Sued individually and in
his official capacity; JOHN DOE #1, Sued individually and in
his official capacity; JOHN DOE #2, Sued individually and in
his official capacity; JOHN DOE #3, Sued individually and in
his official capacity; JOHN DOE #4, Sued individually and in
his official capacity; DAVID R. HINES, Sued individually and
in his official capacity; HANOVER COUNTY; JOSEPH D. WINFREE,
Sued individually and in his official capacity,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:12-cv-00873-HEH)
Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 3, 2013

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roy E. Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Farnaz Farkish, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; William Fisher
Etherington, Leslie A. Winneberger, BEALE, DAVIDSON, ETHERINGTON
& MORRIS, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Roy E. Miller appeals the district court’s orders
dismissing his claims against several defendants on grounds of
immunity. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Miller v. Parrish, No. 3:12-cv-00873-HEH (E.D.
Va. Feb. 13, 2013; Mar. 20, 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 --