Case Name: Robin W. VANDERWALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA; Mark R. Warner, Governor; Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia; Commander, Virginia State Police; Administrator, Virginia Sex Registry; A. Joseph Canada, Jr.; Ramona L. Johnston, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-09
Citations: 223 F. App'x 249
Docket Number: No. 06-7458
Parties: Robin W. VANDERWALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA; Mark R. Warner, Governor; Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia; Commander, Virginia State Police; Administrator, Virginia Sex Registry; A. Joseph Canada, Jr.; Ramona L. Johnston, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 223
Pages: 249–250

Head Matter:
Robin W. VANDERWALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA; Mark R. Warner, Governor; Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia; Commander, Virginia State Police; Administrator, Virginia Sex Registry; A. Joseph Canada, Jr.; Ramona L. Johnston, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-7458.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 7, 2007.
Decided: April 9, 2007.
Robin W. Vanderwall, Appellant Pro Se. G. Michael Favale, James Christian Stuchell, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia; Jeff Wayne Rosen, Lisa Ehrich, Pender & Coward, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Robin W. Vanderwall appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Vanderwall v. Virginia, No. 1:05-cv-01341-JCC (E.D.Va. Aug. 9, 2006). We grant Vanderwall's motion to amend his informal brief and deny his motion for appointment of counsel. 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.