Donald Trantham, Jr. v. Henry County Sheriff's Office, No. 11-1337 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1337 DONALD TRANTHAM, JR., Plaintiff Appellant, v. HENRY COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY, County of Henry; GARDNER GARDNER BARROW & SHARPE; MARTINSVILLE, VIRGINIA POLICE DEPARTMENT; VIRGINIA STATE POLICE; MARTINSVILLE HENRY COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL; DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (4:10-cv-00058-jlk-mfu) Submitted: June 16, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit Judges, June 20, 2011 and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald Trantham, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jim H. Guynn, Jr., GUYNN, MEMMER & DILLON, PC, Salem, Virginia; Philip Grahem Gardner, GARDNER BARROW SHARPE & REYNOLDS, Martinsville, Virginia; Martha White Medley, Michael Anthony Nicholas, DANIEL, MEDLEY & KIRBY, PC, Danville, Virginia; George Walerian Chabalewski, Christina Nicole Gilliam, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Nora Beth Dorsey, Jodi Beth Simopoulos, HANCOCK DANIEL JOHNSON & NAGLE, PC, Glen Allen, Virginia; Thomas Linn Eckert, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Donald Trantham, Jr., appeals the district court s order dismissing Trantham s claims against all Defendants. have reviewed the record and find no reversible We error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Trantham v. Henry Cnty. Sheriff s Office, No. 4:10-cv- 00058-jlk-mfu (W.D. Va. Mar. 10, 2011). 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. 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.