Cynthia Foulke v. Marla Decker, (4th Cir. 2013) - Case Law - VLEX 456847054

Cynthia Foulke v. Marla Decker, (4th Cir. 2013)

CONTENT

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1482

CYNTHIA L. FOULKE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MARLA G. DECKER, in her official capacity as the Secretary

of Public Safety, Commonwealth of Virginia; JANET POLAREK,

in her official capacity as Secretary of the Commonwealth of

Virginia; W. STEVEN FLAHERTY, in his individual capacity and

official capacity as the Superintendent of Virginia State

Police; GARY B. PAYNE, in his individual capacity; JAMES L.

HOPKINS, in his individual capacity; NATHAN E.

HOLLANDSWORTH, in his individual capacity,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

VIRGINIA STATE POLICE; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior

District Judge. (6:12-cv-00006-NKM-RSB)

Submitted: August 14, 2013 Decided: August 27, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cynthia L. Foulke, Appellant Pro Se. George Walerian Chabalewski, Christy Monolo, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Cynthia L. Foulke appeals the district court's order denying relief on her 42U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. ∗ We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Foulke v. Decker, No. 6:12-cv-00006-NKM-RSB (W.D. Va.

Sept. 24, 2012). 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 ∗ We note that Foulke did not indicate in her notice of appeal that she sought to appeal the district court's order denying reconsideration. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii).

Although she mentioned the order denying reconsideration in her informal brief, the brief was not filed within the appeal period. See Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 242, 245 (1992) (holding that appellate brief may serve as notice of appeal provided it otherwise complies with rules governing proper timing and substance).