Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
STEVENSON v. KWIECINSKI, 411 Fed.Appx. 584 (4th Cir. 2011)
Aaron A. STEVENSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jamie A. KWIECINSKI; DwightW. Avers; Atlas Gaskins, in his Off. capacity as Chief of Police,Roanoke City Police Dep’t, Defendants-Appellees., 411 F. App'x 584 (4th Cir. 2011)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2011-02-16
- Topic
- general
STEVENSON v. KWIECINSKI, 411 Fed.Appx. 584 (4th Cir. 2011) Aaron A. STEVENSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jamie A. KWIECINSKI; DwightW.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed STEVENSON v. KWIECINSKI, 411 Fed.Appx. 584 (4th Cir. 2011). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
STEVENSON v. KWIECINSKI,411 Fed.Appx. 584(4th Cir. 2011)
Aaron A. STEVENSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jamie A. KWIECINSKI; Dwight
W. Avers; Atlas Gaskins, in his official capacity as Chief of Police,
Roanoke City Police Department, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-1962.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: February 10, 2011.
Decided: February 16, 2011.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:09-cv-00525-gec).
Aaron A. Stevenson, Appellant Pro Se. Timothy Ross Spencer, City Attorney's Office, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Aaron A. Stevenson appeals the district court's order granting the Defendants' motions for summary judgment and denying his motion for summary judgment in his civil rights action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.Stevenson v. Kwiecinski, No. 7:09-cv-00525-gec,2010 WL 2927964(W.D.Va. July 23, 2010). 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.
- [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ↩