Opinion
No. 11-2191
04-02-2012
DONALD P. KECK, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; GENE JOHNSON, in his Official and Individual Capacities; WILLIAM ROGERS, a/k/a Buck; JOHN B. TAYLOR; ROBIN HULBERT; PAUL BROUGHTON; NICK BRAUGHTON; G. K. WASHINGTON; KATHY BRAME; EDDIE PEARSON; TAMMIE ESTEP; ERIC BRAEN; KENNY MOORE; BEATRICE ANDERSON; ELIZABETH THORNTON; DOUG SMITH; KAREN HARDWICK; STEVE WERBY; KEVIN BIRCHAM; GARY DURHAM; CLAUDIA FARR, in her Official and Individual Capacities; JOHN v. ROBINSON, in his Official and Individual Capacities; SARAH R. WILSON, in her Official and Individual Capacities; ERNEST G. SPRATLEY, in her Official and Individual Capacities, Defendants - Appellees.
Donald P. Keck, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Sydney Edmund Rab, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Mary Elizabeth Davis, SPOTTS FAIN, PC, Richmond, Virginia; Joshua Paul Hanbury, George Peter Sibley, III, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:10-cv-00555-REP-MHL)
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Donald P. Keck, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Sydney Edmund Rab,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Mary Elizabeth
Davis, SPOTTS FAIN, PC, Richmond, Virginia; Joshua Paul Hanbury,
George Peter Sibley, III, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LLP, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Donald P. Keck, Jr., appeals the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny his several federal and state law claims against Defendants. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. See Keck v. Virginia, No. 3:10-cv-00555-REP-MHL (E.D. Va. Sept. 30, 2011). 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