Byers v. Commonwealth ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1084
ERIC MARIO BYERS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
UNITED STATES ex rel. $12,642.00 United States
Currency, 1993 Mazda RX7 (VIN:
JM1FD3312P0207844), 1993 Mazda 929 (VIN:
JM1HD4611P0202550), 2001 Suzuki Motorcycle
(VIN: JS1GN7BA912102511),
Plaintiff,
versus
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; J. J. KOZLOWSKI,
Det. of the Commonwealth of Virginia; M. D.
SANDERSON, Det. of the Commonwealth of
Virginia; T. P. DUGAN, Det. of the
Commonwealth of Virginia; D. GUEVARA, Det. of
the Commonwealth of Virginia; J. J. MASSIE,
Det. of the Commonwealth of Virginia;
CORCORAN, Det. of the Commonwealth of
Virginia; JURACK, Det. of the Commonwealth of
Virginia; CALHOUN, Det. of the Commonwealth of
Virginia; STEWART, Det. of the Commonwealth of
Virginia; T. CARINI, Det. of the Commonwealth
of Virginia; N. C. THOMPSON, Lieutenant, Det.
of the Commonwealth of Virginia; HARVEY
BRYANT, III, Commonwealth Attorney of the
Commonwealth of Virginia,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-03-724-2)
Submitted: May 21, 2004 Decided: June 15, 2004
Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Eric Mario Byers, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Eric Mario Byers appeals the district court’s judgment
and order denying his requests for a temporary restraining order
and a preliminary injunction and summarily dismissing his civil
rights complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we dismiss that part of the appeal
from the denial of a temporary restraining order. See Virginia v.
Tenneco, Inc., 538 F.2d 1026, 1029-30 (4th Cir. 1976). We affirm
the remainder of the district court’s order for the reasons stated
by the district court. See Byers v. Commonwealth, No. CA-03-724-2
(E.D. Va. Dec. 10, 2003). 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.
DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART
- 3 -