Court Opinion

ID: 9397284
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-24 21:01:16.024355+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:23.297712
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1024      Doc: 13         Filed: 05/23/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1024

        LINWOOD S. HASKINS, SR.,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Department of Social Services, Division of
        Child Support Enforcement; COREY L. POINDEXTER, Assistant Attorney
        General III; TONY NELSON, District Manager - Central Virginia Office;
        STEPHANIE SMITH, Case Manager,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:22-cv-00456-DJN)

        Submitted: May 18, 2023                                              Decided: May 23, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Linwood Sylvester Haskins, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Hensley, OFFICE OF
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1024         Doc: 13     Filed: 05/23/2023    Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Linwood Sylvester Haskins appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42

        U.S.C. § 1983 action for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. We have reviewed

        the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. Haskins v. Virginia, No.

        3:22-cv-00456-DJN (E.D. Va. Dec. 9, 2022). We also deny Haskins’ motion to appoint

        counsel. 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

                                                   2