Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-01022/USCOURTS-ca4-10-01022-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 10-1022

JOSHUA BARRETT SHAPIRO,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

JUDGES OF THE VIRGINIA BEACH DISTRICT COURT; CALVIN R. 

DEPEW, JR., Presiding Judge; ROBERT WINTERS, Substitute 

Judge, in his official capacity; GENE A. WOOLARD, Chief 

Judge, in his official capacity; W. EDWARD HUDGINS, JR., 

Presiding Judge, in his official capacity; PAMELA E. 

HUTCHENS, Presiding Judge, in her official capacity; CLERKS 

OF VIRGINIA BEACH GENERAL DISTRICT COURT CIVIL DIVISION; 

JUDE JACKSON, Assistant to the Judges; SHELBY DUELL, 

Supervising Clerk; HELEN ATKINSON, Assistant Supervisor; 

DESMA LANS, Clerk; MARION NICHOLS, Clerk; FREDERICK B. LOWE, 

Virginia Beach Circuit Court Chief Judge, in his official 

capacity; MICHAEL ROBUSTO, Substitute Judge, in his official 

capacity,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District 

Judge. (2:09-cv-00586-MSD-FBS)

Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: July 29, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 10-1022 Doc: 5 Filed: 07/29/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Joshua Barrett Shapiro, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-1022 Doc: 5 Filed: 07/29/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Joshua Barrett Shapiro appeals the district court’s 

order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. See Shapiro v. Judges of 

the Va. Beach Dist. Court, No. 2:09-cv-00586-MSD-FBS (E.D. Va. 

Dec. 24, 2009). 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: 10-1022 Doc: 5 Filed: 07/29/2010 Pg: 3 of 3