Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Yancey v. Mobley, 01-6330 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6330 Visitors: 11
Filed: Jun. 07, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6330 NATHAN J. YANCEY, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus C. MOBLEY, A.L.L.S. Law Library Supervisor Assistant; MS. MILLER, Sergeant, Prison Secu- rity; D. A. GARRAGHTY, Head Warden, Greens- ville Correctional Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-00-1927-AM) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided:
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6330 NATHAN J. YANCEY, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus C. MOBLEY, A.L.L.S. Law Library Supervisor Assistant; MS. MILLER, Sergeant, Prison Secu- rity; D. A. GARRAGHTY, Head Warden, Greens- ville Correctional Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-00-1927-AM) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: June 7, 2001 Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathan J. Yancey, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Nathan J. Yancey, Jr., a Virginia 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 Yancey v. Mobley, No. CA-00-1927-AM (E.D. Va. Feb. 8, 2001). We deny Yancey’s motion for appointment for 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