# Thomas O. Williams v. James City County Board of Supervisors > Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · November 6, 1992 · 978 F.2d 1257 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/594110 ## Case - **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - **Decided:** November 6, 1992 - **Citations:** 978 F.2d 1257; 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 34471; 1992 WL 321291 - **Precedential status:** Unpublished - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/594110 ## Opinion text 978 F.2d 1257 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Thomas O. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James City COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, Defendant-Appellee. No. 92-2076. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: October 26, 1992 Decided: November 6, 1992 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-92-17-4) Thomas O. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Frank MacDonald Morton, III, County Attorney, Williamsburg, Virginia, for Appellee. E.D.Va. Affirmed. Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: OPINION 1 Thomas O. Williams appeals from the district court's order dismissing Williams's request for mandamus relief. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. * Williams v. James City County Bd. of Supervisors, No. CA-92-17-4 (E.D. Va. July 31, 1992). 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 * We deny Williams's motion for appointment of counsel --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/594110. Public record. Not legal advice.