Joseph Dwight LAWSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA; County of Bedford; County of Roanoke; Montgomery County; County of Floyd; George Harris, Judge, Roanoke County Circuit Court; Diane Strickland, Judge, Roanoke County Circuit Court; Robert M.D. Turk, Judge, Montgomery County Circuit Court; Doug Marrs, Sheriff, Montgomery County; Marian Kelly, Commonwealth Attorney, Roanoke County; Mark W. Claytor, Attorney, Roanoke County; James Swanson, Attorney, Roanoke County; Harry W. Garrett, Jr., Attorney, Bedford, Virginia; Roanoke County Police Department; Officer Hewitt, Roanoke County Police Department; J.L. McPhail, Jr., Officer, Roanoke County Police Department; Officer Cole, Roanoke County Police Department; Montgomery County Police Department; John Altizer, Officer, Montgomery County Police Department; D.L. Link, Officer, Montgomery County Sheriffs Department; D.W. Sadler, Officer, Montgomery County Police Department; Virginia State Police, Salem, Virginia; Trooper Grubb, Salem, Virginia; Trooper Mullens, Salem, Virginia; Steven A. McGraw, Roanoke County Circuit Court; Floyd County Magistrates Office; New River Valley Community Action, Radford, Virginia; Patricia Lynn Baker, Radford, Virginia; C.L. Woods, Magistrate, Roanoke City; Terry Williams, Magistrate, Montgomery County; Department of Motor Vehicles, Richmond, Virginia; David Perry, Bedford, Virginia; Benjamin William Crooks, Roanoke, Virginia; Harmons Chevron, Christiansburg, Virginia; BB & T of Ararat, Virginia; all Defendants, Defendants-Appellees

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit2002-06-17No. No. 02-1366

36 F. App'x 537

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Dwight Lawson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Lawson v. Virginia, No. CA-01-180-1 (M.D.N.C. filed Mar. 22, 2002 & entered Mar. 25, 2002). 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.