Quirin Weatherspoon v. Lorin Hay, No. 09-7435 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7435 QUIRIN WEATHERSPOON, Plaintiff Appellant, v. LORIN DANIEL HAY; PATRICIA WEST, Chief Judge of Virginia Beach Circuit Court; WALTER S. FELTUN, Chief Judge of the Virginia Court of Appeals; LARRY G. ELDER, Judge of the Virginia Court of Appeals; ROBERT P. FRANK, Judge of the Virginia Court of Appeals; SAM W. COLEMAN, III, Senior Judge of the Virginia Court of Appeals; LEROY F. ROUNDTREE HASSEL, SR., Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia; CYNTHIA D. KINSER, Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia; LEROY FRANCIS MILLETTE, JR., Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia; DONALD W. LEMONS, Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia; S. BERNARD GOODWYN, Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia; BARBARA MILANO KEEAN, Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia; LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR., Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia; VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL S OFFICE, John Cook and Ellett Ohree, receiving agents of this department; VIRGINIA STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION, Attention Commissioners, Harold Robertson, receiving agent of this department, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cv-00732-CMH-IDD) Submitted: November 13, 2009 Decided: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. February 16, 2010 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Quirin Weatherspoon, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Quirin Weatherspoon appeals the district court s order dismissing his complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2006), as frivolous. We reversible error. pending motions district court. have reviewed the record and find Accordingly, we deny all of Weatherspoon s and affirm for the reasons stated by the Weatherspoon v. Hay, No. 1:09-cv-00732-CMH-IDD (E.D. Va. filed July 16, 2009 & entered July 17, 2009). dispense with no oral argument because the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
