Case Name: Eric Mario BYERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, and United States ex rel. $12,642.00 United States Currency, 1993 Mazda RX7 (VIN: JM1FD3312P0207844), 1993 Mazda 929 (VIN: JM1HD4611P0202550), 2001 Suzuki Motorcycle (VIN: JS1GN7BA912102511), Plaintiff, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA; J.J. Kozlowski, Det. of the Commonwealth of Virginia; M.D. Sanderson, Det. of the Commonwealth of Virginia; T.P. Dugan, Det. of the Commonwealth of Virginia; D. Guevara, Det. of the Commonwealth of Virginia; J.J. Massie, Det. of the Commonwealth of Virginia; Corcoran, Det. of the Commonwealth of Virginia; Jurack, Det. of the Commonwealth of Virginia; Calhoun, Det. of the Commonwealth of Virginia; Stewart, Det. of the Commonwealth of Virginia; T. Carini, Det. of the Commonwealth of Virginia; N.C. Thompson, Lieutenant, Det. of the Commonwealth of Virginia; Harvey Bryant, III, Commonwealth Attorney of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-15
Citations: 100 F. App'x 198
Docket Number: No. 04-1084
Parties: Eric Mario BYERS, Plaintiff—Appellant, and United States ex rel. $12,642.00 United States Currency, 1993 Mazda RX7 (VIN: JM1FD3312P0207844), 1993 Mazda 929 (VIN: JM1HD4611P0202550), 2001 Suzuki Motorcycle (VIN: JS1GN7BA912102511), Plaintiff, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA; J.J. Kozlowski, Det. of the Commonwealth of Virginia; M.D. Sanderson, Det. of the Commonwealth of Virginia; T.P. Dugan, Det. of the Commonwealth of Virginia; D. Guevara, Det. of the Commonwealth of Virginia; J.J. Massie, Det. of the Commonwealth of Virginia; Corcoran, Det. of the Commonwealth of Virginia; Jurack, Det. of the Commonwealth of Virginia; Calhoun, Det. of the Commonwealth of Virginia; Stewart, Det. of the Commonwealth of Virginia; T. Carini, Det. of the Commonwealth of Virginia; N.C. Thompson, Lieutenant, Det. of the Commonwealth of Virginia; Harvey Bryant, III, Commonwealth Attorney of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 100
Pages: 198–199

Head Matter:
Eric Mario BYERS, Plaintiff—Appellant, and United States ex rel. $12,642.00 United States Currency, 1993 Mazda RX7 (VIN: JM1FD3312P0207844), 1993 Mazda 929 (VIN: JM1HD4611P0202550), 2001 Suzuki Motorcycle (VIN: JS1GN7BA912102511), Plaintiff, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA; J.J. Kozlowski, Det. of the Commonwealth of Virginia; M.D. Sanderson, Det. of the Commonwealth of Virginia; T.P. Dugan, Det. of the Commonwealth of Virginia; D. Guevara, Det. of the Commonwealth of Virginia; J.J. Massie, Det. of the Commonwealth of Virginia; Corcoran, Det. of the Commonwealth of Virginia; Jurack, Det. of the Commonwealth of Virginia; Calhoun, Det. of the Commonwealth of Virginia; Stewart, Det. of the Commonwealth of Virginia; T. Carini, Det. of the Commonwealth of Virginia; N.C. Thompson, Lieutenant, Det. of the Commonwealth of Virginia; Harvey Bryant, III, Commonwealth Attorney of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 04-1084.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 21, 2004.
Decided June 15, 2004.
Eric Mario Byers, Appellant pro se.
Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Eric Mario Byers appeals the district court's judgment and order denying his requests for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction and summarily dismissing his civil rights complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we dismiss that part of the appeal from the denial of a temporary restraining order. See Virginia v. Tenneco, Inc., 538 F.2d 1026, 1029-30 (4th Cir.1976). We affirm the remainder of the district court's order for the reasons stated by the district court. See Byers v. Commonwealth, No. CA-03-724-2 (E.D.Va. Dec. 10, 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.
DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART