Filed: June 5, 2003
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Nos. 03-1047(L)
(CA-02-1106-A)
Darryl Allmond,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
Deputy Cozza, et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
CORRECTED ORDER
The court corrects its order issued June 3, 2003, to read as
follows:
On page 2, section 5 -- the status line is corrected to read
“Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.”
For the Court - By Direction
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk
Filed: June 3, 2003
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Nos. 03-1047(L)
(CA-02-1106-A)
Darryl Allmond,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
Deputy Cozza, et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
O R D E R
The court amends its opinion filed May 20, 2003, as follows:
On page 2, section 5 -- the status line is corrected to read
“Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.”
For the Court - By Direction
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1047
DARRYL ALLMOND,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DEPUTY COZZA; DEPUTY WINSTEAD; JOHN DOE; JANE
DOE,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
JAMES DUNNING; ALEXANDRIA SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT; CITY OF ALEXANDRIA; DEPUTY MASON;
SERGEANT ELLER; RICHARD R. RUSCAK,
Defendants.
No. 03-1107
DARRYL ALLMOND,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DEPUTY COZZA; DEPUTY WINSTEAD; JOHN DOE; JANE
DOE,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
JAMES DUNNING; ALEXANDRIA SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT; CITY OF ALEXANDRIA; DEPUTY MASON;
SERGEANT ELLER; RICHARD R. RUSCAK,
Defendants.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CA-02-1106-A)
Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 20, 2003
Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darryl Allmond, Appellant Pro Se. Christina Kearney Saba, SHUFORD,
RUBIN & GIBNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
4
PER CURIAM:
Darryl Allmond appeals the district court’s orders denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and denying his
motion for discovery sanctions. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. See Allmond v. Cozza, No. CA-02-1106-
A (E.D. Va. Dec. 23, 2002; filed Jan. 2, 2003 & entered Jan. 6,
2003). 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
5