Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-01459/USCOURTS-ca4-07-01459-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1459

NED N. CARY, JR., Morning Star Baptist Church,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STERLING PERRY, James City County Police;

MICHAEL MCGINTY, Commonwealth of Virginia;

SHAWN MILLER, Anheuser-Bush Incorporated;

ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INCORPORATED,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Walter D. Kelley, Jr.,

District Judge. (4:05-cv-00047)

Submitted: November 6, 2007 Decided: November 15, 2007

Before WILKINSON and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ned N. Cary, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Leo Paul Rogers, Jr., JAMES

CITY COUNTY ATTORNEY, Williamsburg, Virginia; Jeff Wayne Rosen,

Lisa Ehrich, PENDER & COWARD, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Leonard

C. Heath, Jr., JONES, BLECHMAN, WOLTZ & KELLY, PC, Newport News,

Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-1459 Doc: 35 Filed: 11/15/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
*The district court dismissed Sheriff Perry on statute of

limitations and res judicata grounds. We affirm his dismissal on

limitations grounds only. We note, moreover, that he was not

alleged to have played any role in Cary’s termination. 

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Ned N. Cary, Jr. appeals the district court’s order

dismissing this action challenging Cary’s termination from

employment and imposing monetary sanctions and a prefiling

injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. Cary v. Perry, No. 4:05-cv-00047 (E.D. Va. Apr. 2,

2007).* 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

Appeal: 07-1459 Doc: 35 Filed: 11/15/2007 Pg: 2 of 2