Redditt v. Commonwealth of VA ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1912
LOUISE REDDITT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; JERRY KILGORE, State
of Virginia Attorney General; JOHN CLARK
BODDIE, Fulton County Major; BILL EDWARDS,
South Fulton County Commissioner; PAUL L.
HOWARD, Fulton County District Attorney,
FAIRFAX COUNTY, Fairfax County General
District Court; FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFFS
OFFICE; VERNON L. THOMPSON, Fairfax County
Sheriff; MARK S. LORIA, Esquire; FAIRFAX
COUNTY GENERAL DISTRICT; HONORABLE GALLUHUE;
HONORABLE CASSIDY; DWIGHT JONES, Fairfax
County Public Defender; LEON PONCE; OFFICER
PERL, Fairfax County Police Officer; OFFICER
HERBERT, Fairfax County Police Officer; DENNIS
FITZPATRICK, Commonwealth Prosecutor; KIMBERLY
PACE, Commonwealth Prosecutor; HONORABLE
KLEIN, Fairfax County Circuit Court; HERBERT
HAWKINS, Fairfax County Deputy Sheriff;
FAIRFAX COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; JOHN T.
FREY, Fairfax County Clerk, MICHAEL MCWEENY,
Honorable, Fairfax County Circuit Court; STAN
BARRY, Fairfax County Sheriff; MAJOR BOYD
WHITLEY, Fairfax County Sheriff; SHERIFF
STOVASH, Fairfax County; HONORABLE DAVIS,
Fairfax County General District,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CA-05-800-1-JCC)
Submitted: December 22, 2005 Decided: December 28, 2005
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louise Redditt, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Louise Redditt appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court. See Redditt v. Commonwealth of VA, No. CA-05-800-
1-JCC (E.D. Va. Aug. 1, 2005). We also deny Redditt’s motion for
default judgment. 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 -