Case ID: f-appx_10/html/0148-02.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

Guy Carmichael CRENSHAW, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Unknown and unnamed John and Jane Doe Attorneys and Officers; Cumberland County Sheriff's Department, Unknown and unnamed John and Jane Doe Sheriff's Officers; Cumberland County, and Federal Drug Enforcement Team, unknown and unnamed John and Jane Doe Agents; Steven D. Goodwin; Douglas P. McGee; Sa’ad El Amin; James S. Gilmore, III, Governor; Buckingham County Sheriff's Department; Farmville Police Department; Claude Meinhart; Rodney Davenport; Travis Gilliam; Todd Phillips; Dennis Ownby, Cumberland County Sheriff's Office; Patricia Sales, Commonwealth Attorney; Janet Reno, Department of Justice; Edgar M. Wright, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 00-7522.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 17, 2001.
    Decided May 22, 2001.
    Guy Carmichael Crenshaw, pro se.
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Guy Carmichael Crenshaw appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1988 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Crenshaw v. Virginia, No. CA-00-719-7 (W.D.Va. Sept. 15, 2000). We deny Crenshaw’s motion for 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.