Case Name: Jerry L. CARY, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Honorable Alan E. ROSENBLATT, Judge; Honorable A. Bonwill Shockley, Judge; Honorable Leroy Rountree Hassell, Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court; Steven Witmer, Virginia Assistant Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-18
Citations: 180 F. App'x 447
Docket Number: No. 05-7362
Parties: Jerry L. CARY, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Honorable Alan E. ROSENBLATT, Judge; Honorable A. Bonwill Shockley, Judge; Honorable Leroy Rountree Hassell, Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court; Steven Witmer, Virginia Assistant Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 180
Pages: 447–447

Head Matter:
Jerry L. CARY, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Honorable Alan E. ROSENBLATT, Judge; Honorable A. Bonwill Shockley, Judge; Honorable Leroy Rountree Hassell, Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court; Steven Witmer, Virginia Assistant Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 05-7362.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 22, 2006.
Decided May 18, 2006.
Jerry L. Cary, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before LUTTIG and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
Judge Luttig was a member of the original panel but did not participate in this decision. This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jerry L. Cary, Sr., 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. See Cary v. Rosenblatt, No. CA-05-456-2 (E.D.Va. Aug. 23, 2005). We deny Cary's motions for appointment of counsel, to amend the caption, and to amend his claim. 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.