Case ID: f-appx_71/html/0985-01.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

Michael F. CROSBY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Deputy R.K. ALFORD; Deputy M. Nagel; Deputy Children; Master Deputy Williams; Deputy H.K. Stiffler, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 03-6831.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 14, 2003.
    Decided Aug. 22, 2003.
    Michael F. Crosby, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Lawrence Dumville, Norris & St. Clair, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Michael F. Crosby appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion for a new trial. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm both orders for the reasons stated by the district court. See Crosby v. Alford, No. CA-01-781 (E.D. Va. Apr. 9 and May 7, 2003). 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.