Jafari v. City of Richmond ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1767
EMMETT JOHNSON JAFARI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CITY OF RICHMOND, a Municipal Corporation and
political subdivision of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, and/or, in his/her personal
capacities and individual and official
capacities as officials, administrators,
department heads and final decision makers of
and for the City; LAWRENCE DOUGLAS WILDER,
Mayor; WILLIAM HARRELL, Chief Administrative
Officer; RUDOLPH MCCOLLUM, Former Vice-Mayor,
Mayor; JOHN A. RUPP, Former City Attorney;
JEAN K. SHOWALTER, General Registrar; GLEN
BUTLER, Director of Social Services,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
TIMOTHY KAINE, Former Mayor; ROBERT C. BOBB,
Former City Manager; CALVIN JAMISON, Former
City Manager,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:05-cv-00823-HEH)
Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: December 28, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Emmett Johnson Jafari, Appellant Pro Se. David J. Freedman, CITY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Richmond, Virginia, John Adrian Gibney, Jr.,
THOMPSON & MCMULLAN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Emmett Johnson Jafari appeals the district court’s orders
granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss his complaint under Section
5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c (2000), and
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), denying Jafari’s motion to set aside
judgment, and granting Defendants’ petition for attorney’s fees.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Jafari v. City of Richmond, No. 3:05-cv-00823-HEH (E.D. Va.
May 12, 2006; May 30, 2006; June 8, 2006). 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
- 3 -