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)
20-7859•Durwin Evant Bonds, Jr. v. JUDGE CHRISTOPHER CLEMENS, Circuit Court Judge for Roanoke City
20-7859Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitAug 23, 2021
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7859
DURWIN EVANT BONDS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER CLEMENS, Circuit Court Judge for Roanoke City;
DAVID BILLINGSLEY, Assistant Commonwealth Attorney for the City of
Roanoke; OFFICER J. D. MARSH, Roanoke City Police Department; SHANNON
L. JONES, Attorney at Law,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Thomas T. Cullen, District Judge. (7:20-cv-00098-TTC-RSB)
Submitted: August 19, 2021 Decided: August 23, 2021
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Durwin Evant Bonds, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Anthony Piasta, JOHNSON AYERS
& MATTHEWS, PLC, Roanoke, Virginia; Douglas Paul Barber, Jr., Timothy Ross
Spencer, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
Roanoke, Virginia; Meghan Ashley Strickler, Melvin Edward Williams, MELVIN
EDWARD WILLIAMS PLC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Durwin Evant Bonds, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we deny Bonds’ motions for leave to stay, for production of a transcript at
Government expense, and for admissions from Defendants, and we affirm the district
court’s order. Bonds v. Clemens, No. 7:20-cv-00098-TTC-RSB (W.D. Va. Nov. 23, 2020).
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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.