Reginald Wright v. Commonwealth of Virginia Dept. of Child Support ( 2024 )

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1321 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/26/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1321
REGINALD WRIGHT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT
ENFORCEMENT; VERLITA HARRIS, individually and in her official capacity as
an Operations Manager; LAURA MCVAY, individually and in her capacity as a
Child Support Attorney; CONSTANCE H. FROGALE, individually and in her
capacity as a Judge in her respective court in the City of Alexandria, Virginia;
THOMAS KEVIN CULLEN, individually and in his capacity as a Judge in his
respective court in the City of Alexandria, Virginia; JAMES C. CLARK,
individually and in his capacity as a Judge in his respective court in the City of
Alexandria, Virginia; KATHLEEN M. USTON, individually and in her capacity as
a Judge in her respective court in the City of Alexandria, Virginia,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:23-cv-01232-CMH-WEF)
Submitted: August 22, 2024 Decided: August 26, 2024
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1321 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/26/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
Reginald Wright, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1321 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/26/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Reginald Wright appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action in which he raised claims related to his child support obligation. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
order. Wright v. Commonwealth of Virginia Dep’t of Child Support Enf’t, No.
1:23-cv-01232-CMH-WEF (E.D. Va. Mar. 6, 2024). 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