Case ID: f-appx_211/html/0200-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Emmett Johnson JAFARI, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CITY OF RICHMOND, a Municipal Corporation and political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and/or, in his/her personal capacities and individual and official capacities as officials, administrators, department heads and final decision makers of and for the City; Lawrence Douglas Wilder, Mayor; William Harrell, Chief Administrative Officer; Rudolph McCollum, Former Vice-Mayor, Mayor; John A. Rupp, Former City Attorney; Jean K. Showalter, General Registrar; Glen Butler, Director of Social Services, Defendants—Appellees, and Timothy Kaine, Former Mayor; Robert C. Bobb, Former City Manager; Calvin Jamison, Former City Manager, Defendants.
    No. 06-1767.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 21, 2006.
    Decided: Dec. 28, 2006.
    Emmett Johnson Jafari, Appellant Pro Se. David J. Freedman, City Attorney’s Office, Richmond, Virginia, John Adrian Gibney, Jr., Thompson & McMullan, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Emmett Johnson Jafari appeals the district court’s orders granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss his complaint under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c (2000), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), denying Jafari’s motion to set aside judgment, and granting Defendants’ petition for attorney’s fees. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jafari v. City of Richmond, No. 3:05-cv-00823-HEH (E.D. Va. May 12, 2006; May 30, 2006; June 8, 2006). 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.