Filed: May 22, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2436 ELDER DEFORRORRORA LOCUST, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MOLLY BURNS; CHESAPEAKE SOCIAL SERVICES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (MC-00-46) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 22, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elder
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2436 ELDER DEFORRORRORA LOCUST, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MOLLY BURNS; CHESAPEAKE SOCIAL SERVICES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (MC-00-46) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 22, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elder D..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2436 ELDER DEFORRORRORA LOCUST, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MOLLY BURNS; CHESAPEAKE SOCIAL SERVICES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (MC-00-46) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 22, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elder Deforrorrora Locust, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Elder Deforrorrora Locust appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 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. Locust v. Burns, No. MC-00-46 (E.D. Va. Oct. 30, 2000). We deny Locust’s motion for the bar numbers of all judges on this court. 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 2
