Case Name: Merle T. RUTLEDGE, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer TESSIER, in his individual capacity, officer Plaza, in her individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees. and John Doe 3, supervisor of the Norfolk, Virginia Police Department Officer, sued in his individual and official capacity, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-03
Citations: 594 F. App'x 209
Docket Number: No. 14-2197
Parties: Merle T. RUTLEDGE, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer TESSIER, in his individual capacity, officer Plaza, in her individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees. and John Doe 3, supervisor of the Norfolk, Virginia Police Department Officer, sued in his individual and official capacity, Defendant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 594
Pages: 209–209

Head Matter:
Merle T. RUTLEDGE, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer TESSIER, in his individual capacity, officer Plaza, in her individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees. and John Doe 3, supervisor of the Norfolk, Virginia Police Department Officer, sued in his individual and official capacity, Defendant.
No. 14-2197.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 25, 2015.
Decided: March 3, 2015.
Merle T. Rutledge, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Melvin Wayne Ringer, City Attorney’s office, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Merle T. Rutledge, Jr., appeals the district court's order denying relief in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) civil rights action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Rutledge v. Tessier, No. 2:13-cv-00470-DEM, 2014 WL 5422205 (E.D.Va. Oct. 22, 2014). 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.