The opinion
60 F.3d 821
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
WILLIAM LEBRON CHURCH, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT; United States Department Of
Justice; Central Intelligence Agency; Robert Gates;
Federal Bureau of Investigation; William Sessions;
Veterans Administration; United States District Court,
Chattanooga Division; United States District Court,
Richmond Division; Time Warner, Incorporated; Sheriff,
Chesterfield County; Sheriff Wingo, County Jail; Circuit
Court of Chesterfield County; Sheriff, City of Richmond;
Sheriff Winston; Mayor, City of Richmond; City of
Richmond; Sheriff Osmond, Amelia County; Circuit Court of
Amelia County, Virginia; Bank of Chichamauga; Bank of
Lafayette; Pioneer Bank of Chattanooga; NAACP; Jesse
Jackson; John Houston; Michael Joseph Jackson; Ceo, Black
Panthers; NAAWP; Donal W. Strickland, Esquire; Brenda G.
Siniard, Esquire; Monterey Peninsula Artists, Incorporated;
Paul Goldman; Foreigner; Dennis Elliot; Commonwealth of
Virginia; Virginia Department of Corrections; Virginia
Parole Board; State of Tennessee; City of Chattanooga;
Criminal Court of Chattanooga; Tennessee Parole and Pardons
Board; State of Georgia; City of Chickamauga; State Of
Alabama; Sheriff, Fort Payne Jail; Criminal Court of Fort
Payne; Court of appeals Of virginia; Marvin F. Cole;
Supreme Court of Virginia; Chief Justice Carrico; Chief
Justice Russell, Defendants--Appellees.
No. 95-1891.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 22, 1995.
Decided July 10, 1995.
William Lebron Church, appellant pro se.
Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
1
Appellant appeals from the district court's order overruling his objections to the court's denial of his motion to reconsider the dismissal without prejudice of his complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988), and denying his motion to amend the complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. * Church v. United States Government, No. CA-94-579-R (E.D. Va. Apr. 6, 1995). 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 note that the order denying relief on the merits dismissed the complaint without prejudice. If Appellant chooses to refile his section 1983 complaint, he should be cognizant of the applicable statute of limitations. See Va.Code Ann. Sec. 8.01-243(A) (Michie 1992). Further, before challenging his state convictions in a habeas corpus action, Appellant must exhaust state remedies. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (b) (1988); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973)