Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Moore v. Albright, 01-6202 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6202 Visitors: 19
Filed: Oct. 01, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: ON PETITION FOR REHEARING UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6202 PETER MOORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NURSE ALBRIGHT; WEBSTER ANDERSON, Montgomery County Prison Officer; GARY CRONITE, Mainte- nance Officer; J. D. TERRY, Superintendent; RONALD J. ANGELONE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-924-7) Submitted: July 3, 2001
More
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6202 PETER MOORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NURSE ALBRIGHT; WEBSTER ANDERSON, Montgomery County Prison Officer; GARY CRONITE, Mainte- nance Officer; J. D. TERRY, Superintendent; RONALD J. ANGELONE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-924-7) Submitted: July 3, 2001 Decided: October 1, 2001 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Peter Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM This appeal is before us on Peter Moore’s petition for rehear- ing. We dismissed Moore’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, based on the timing of Moore’s filing of his notice of appeal. However, in light of evidence that the district court had granted Moore an extension of time to file his notice of appeal, we grant Moore’s petition for rehearing. Upon our review of the record, however, we find Moore’s appeal to be without merit and therefore dismiss Moore’s appeal as frivolous on the reasoning of the district court. See Moore v. Nurse Albright, No. CA-00-924-7 (W.D. Va. Dec. 11, 2000). 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