Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Russell v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Joseph M. Russell v. Commonwealth of Virginia et al. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief on Russell's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-10-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-1415

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Joseph M. Russell v. Commonwealth of Virginia et al. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief on Russell's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4 views2 pages

    Russell v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Joseph M. Russell v. Commonwealth of Virginia et al. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief on Russell's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 10-1415

    JOSEPH M. RUSSELL,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III; D. ARTHUR
    KELSEY; WILLIAM G. PETTY; M. LANGHORNE KEITH,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Newport News.
    Jerome B. Friedman,
    District Judge. (4:09-cv-00029-JBF-DEM)

    Submitted:

    October 19, 2010

    Decided:

    October 25, 2010

    Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Joseph M. Russell, Appellant Pro Se.


    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,
    Appellees.

    Christy Monolo, OFFICE OF


    Richmond, Virginia, for

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Joseph M. Russell appeals the district courts order
    denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) complaint.
    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    We

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district


    court.

    Russell v. Virginia, No. 4:09-cv-00029-JBF-DEM (E.D. Va.

    March 23, 2010).


    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the


    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like