James Manship, Sr. v. Richard Trodden, No. 08-1041 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1041 JAMES RENWICK MANSHIP, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RICHARD TRODDEN, Commonwealth Attorney; OFFICER TOOMEY, Arlington Police; M. DOUGLAS SCOTT, Chief of Police; BETH ARTHUR, Sheriff; WILLIAM NEWMAN, Judge; SERVANTS OF THE CITIZENS OF ARLINGTON COUNTY; DAVID BRIAN NOLAN, Lawyer (not licensed in Virginia); DAVID RICHARD PRESTIGE, Contractor; JASON MCCANDLESS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cv-00772-TSE-TCB) Submitted: April 4, 2008 Decided: April 15, 2008 Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Renwick Manship, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Kathryn Anne Grace, WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER, LLP, McLean, Virginia; Ara Loris Tramblian, Deputy County Attorney, Arlington, Virginia; C. Nicole Gilliam, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Marc Edmund Miller, HOLLAND & KNIGHT, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: James Renwick Manship, Sr., appeals the district court s order dismissing his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000) for failure to state a claim. and find no reversible error. We have reviewed the record Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.* Manship v. Trodden, No. 1:07-cv-00772-TSE-TCB (E.D. Va. Oct. 22, 2007). We dispense with oral contentions argument because the facts and legal are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * Manship also complains that the district court did not specifically respond to his request for a court-appointed attorney. Although under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (2000), a court may request an attorney to represent an indigent party in a civil case, a court should do so only in exceptional circumstances. Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779, 780 (4th Cir. 1975). The district court s determination that Manship did not present exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel was implicit in the dismissal of his complaint. - 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.