UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1921
MICHAEL D. WILKINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
J. L. CLARY; DANNY FOX; PETE KUEHL; GEORGE
AUSTIN; NANCY M. THORNE,
Defendants - Appellees.
------------------------
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Movant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Dennis W. Dohnal, Magistrate
Judge. (CA-01-795-DWD)
Submitted: October 26, 2006 Decided: February 13, 2007
Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, WIDENER, Circuit Judge, and David A.
FABER, Chief United States District Judge for the Southern District
of West Virginia, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael D. Wilkins, Appellant Pro Se. John A. Gibney, Jr.,
THOMPSON & MCMULLAN, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees J. L.
Clary, Danny Fox, Pete Kuehl, Nancy M. Thorne. Judith Williams
Jagdmann, Attorney General, Maureen Riley Matsen, Deputy Attorney
General, Peter R. Messitt, Senior Assistant Attorney General,
Catherine Crooks Hill, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee George Austin.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Michael D. Wilkins appeals district court orders granting
summary judgment to five Virginia law enforcement officials
(collectively, “Appellees”) in his action under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983
(West 2003). Wilkins alleges that Appellees presented false and
misleading testimony to the federal grand jury that indicted him on
drug charges of which he was later acquitted. The district court
rejected Wilkins’ claim, concluding, inter alia, that Wilkins had
failed to present any evidence to support his allegation.
After reviewing the parties’ briefs and the applicable law, we
conclude that the district court correctly granted summary judgment
to Appellees.* Accordingly, we affirm. 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
*
We also reject Wilkins’ argument that the district court
afforded him inadequate opportunity to conduct discovery.
3