Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Woodson v. Gilmore, 01-6189 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6189 Visitors: 40
Filed: Mar. 20, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6189 JIMMIE HUGENE WOODSON, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GOVERNOR JIM GILMORE; WARDEN ALTON BASKERVILLE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-00-952-2) Submitted: March 9, 2001 Decided: March 20, 2001 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by u
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6189 JIMMIE HUGENE WOODSON, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GOVERNOR JIM GILMORE; WARDEN ALTON BASKERVILLE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-00-952-2) Submitted: March 9, 2001 Decided: March 20, 2001 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmie H. Woodson, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jimmie H. Woodson, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Woodson v. Gilmore, No. CA-00-952-2 (E.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2001). Furthermore, we find this appeal frivolous for purposes of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2), (g) (West Supp. 2000). We deny Woodson’s motions for release from incarceration, his motion for transfer, and his motion to dismiss counsel appointed by the State of Virginia. 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. 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