The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
17-6667•William Lee Anderson, Ii v. Philip H. Witherspoon
17-6667Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitNov 22, 2017
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6667
WILLIAM LEE ANDERSON, II,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PHILIP H. WITHERSPOON,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (7:15-cv-00236-MFU-JCH)
Submitted: November 16, 2017 Decided: November 22, 2017
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Lee Anderson, II, Appellant Pro Se. Jeff W. Rosen, PENDER & COWARD, PC,
Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
William Lee Anderson, II, appeals the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Anderson’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983
complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Anderson v. Witherspoon, No. 7:15-cv-
00236-MFU-JCH (W.D. Va. Mar. 30, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.