Filed: Sep. 07, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6321 JERRY ANTONIO WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WALTER C. MCCARD, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-00-274-WMN) Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 7, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry Antonio Williams, Appell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6321 JERRY ANTONIO WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WALTER C. MCCARD, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-00-274-WMN) Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 7, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry Antonio Williams, Appella..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6321 JERRY ANTONIO WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WALTER C. MCCARD, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-00-274-WMN) Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 7, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry Antonio Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jerry Antonio Williams, a United States inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his action proceeding against his former criminal defense counsel. The district court dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2) (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. According- ly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Williams v. McCard, No. CA-00-274-WMN (D. Md. Feb. 9, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
