Michael Dobson v. Colin Stolle, No. 19-7043 (4th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7043 MICHAEL ANTHONY DOBSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COLIN D. STOLLE, Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office of Virginia Beach; MR. BERNARD W. BOOKER, Warden Buckingham Correctional Center; SCOTT LANG, Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney City of Virginia Beach; MS. PATRICIA MUNLEY, Investigator for the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office of Virginia Beach; DEREK M. REED, Detective Virginia Beach Police Department; MR. PHILIP WHITE, Assistant Warden Green Rock Corr. Center; MR. TOD WATSON, Special Investigator Unit V.D.O.C. Buckingham Corr. Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (7:18-cv-00369-MFU-RSB) Submitted: February 3, 2020 Decided: February 19, 2020 Before QUATTLEBAUM and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Dobson, Appellant Pro Se. Jeff W. Rosen, PENDER & COWARD, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Joseph Martin Kurt, Assistant City Attorney, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Michael Dobson appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Dobson v. Stolle, No. 7:18-cv-00369-MFU-RSB (W.D. Va. July 9, 2019). We deny Dobson’s motion for a certificate of appealability and for appointment of counsel and 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

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.