Court Opinion

ID: 996530
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:52:27.37209+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:09.274952
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 98-6855

JAMES B. SKIPWITH,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

JOHN WHITEHURST, Commonwealth Attorney,

                                               Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-98-592-2)

Submitted:   September 30, 1998           Decided:   October 15, 1998

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James B. Skipwith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     James B. Skipwith appeals from the district court’s order de-

nying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint.

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

of the district court. Skipwith v. Whitehurst, No. CA-98-592-2

(E.D. Va. June 8, 1998). We deny Skipwith’s motion for appointment

of counsel and 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

                                 2