Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06269/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06269-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6269

NORMAN KEVIN WILKERSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD; CHESTERFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT; 

CHESTERFIELD COUNTY COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY OFFICE; 

CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE; WILLIAM DAVENPORT, 

Commonwealth Attorney; THOMAS MCKENNA, Assistant 

Commonwealth Attorney; LURA KHAWAYA, Prosecution Attorney; 

BARBARA COOKE, Assistant Commonwealth Attorney; CHRIS 

HUMPHRIES, Detective; THOMAS KLINE, Detective; SHANNON L. 

TAYLOR; THIERRY DUPUS, Chief of the Chesterfield County 

Police Department; TIMOTHY RING, Captain of the Chesterfield 

County Police Department; RUBEN GREEN; RYAN SPELTZ; JAMES 

BODIE; STEVEN L. MICAS, Chesterfield County Attorney,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief

District Judge. (2:15-cv-00531-RBS-DEM)

Submitted: July 27, 2016 Decided: August 19, 2016 

Before KEENAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 16-6269 Doc: 24 Filed: 08/19/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Norman Kevin Wilkerson, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6269 Doc: 24 Filed: 08/19/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Norman Kevin Wilkerson appeals the district court’s orders

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b) (2012) and denying his motion for reconsideration. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. See Wilkerson v. Cty. of Chesterfield, No. 2:15-cv00531-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. Feb. 23, 2016; Jan. 28, 2016). We deny 

Wilkerson’s pending motions. 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

Appeal: 16-6269 Doc: 24 Filed: 08/19/2016 Pg: 3 of 3