Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Jackson v. Fowlkes, 00-7504 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-7504 Visitors: 9
Filed: Dec. 28, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7504 MIKE E. JACKSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus K. FOWLKES, Grievance Coordinator for SX1; D. E. WILMOUTH, Unit Manager for SX1; LIEUTENANT HARGRAVES, for SX1; LIEUTENANT BROWN, for SX1; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MAYO, for SX1; SERGEANT EZZELL, for SX1; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HILL, for SX1; H. CLARK, Operation Office, SX1, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virgin
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7504 MIKE E. JACKSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus K. FOWLKES, Grievance Coordinator for SX1; D. E. WILMOUTH, Unit Manager for SX1; LIEUTENANT HARGRAVES, for SX1; LIEUTENANT BROWN, for SX1; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MAYO, for SX1; SERGEANT EZZELL, for SX1; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HILL, for SX1; H. CLARK, Operation Office, SX1, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-00-377-2) Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 28, 2000 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mike E. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Mike E. Jackson, a Virginia state inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Jackson v. Fowlkes, No. CA-00-377-2 (E.D. Va. Oct. 4, 2000). We deny Jackson’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer