Chatman v. McVey

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7385 RODRICK B. CHATMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SAM MCVEY, Detective; GREGORY BAKER, Detective, Defendants - Appellees, and WARDEN OF GREENSVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER; THE CITY OF BRISTOL, VIRGINIA; DELAWARE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA; BRISTOL CITY JAIL; POWHATAN RE- CEPTION & CLASSIFICATION CENTER; BRISTOL, VIR- GINIA SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; STAFFORD COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; BRISTOL POLICE DEPART- MENT; TINICUM POLICE DEPARTMENT; GEORGE M. WARREN, JR., Esquire; BEVERLY HANEY, Esquire; WILLIAM H. RYAN, JR., Esquire; WAYNE PUNSHON, Esquire; JOHN F.X. RILEY, Esquire; ROBERT T. LYTHEGOE, Chief of Police for Tinicum; JOHN A. DOE, Officer; JOHN B. DOE, Officer; JOHN C. DOE, Officer; JOHN D. DOE, Officer; GRAY ROBINSON, Esquire; DARRELL POE, Esquire; JACK- SON & ROBINSON; BRADFORD & POE; DANIEL FINNE- GAN, Esquire; PATRICK J. CONNER, Esquire; DENISE M. CONRAD; PATRICIA JOHNSON, Esquire; JOHN W. PERSON, Esquire; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; STAFFORD COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; THE CITY OF BRISTOL, VIRGINIA, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-95-1285-7) Submitted: March 22, 2001 Decided: March 28, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodrick B. Chatman, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Ray Minor, ELLIOTT, LAWSON & POMRENKE, Bristol, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Rodrick Bernard Chatman appeals the district court’s order de- nying his motion for civil or criminal contempt. 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. Chatman v. McVey, No. CA-95-1285-7 (W.D. Va. Sept 15, 2001). 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 2