Filed: Dec. 11, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7122 GARY S. GUTMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEBORAH CRAWFORD; JOHN KAY BANCROFT, Esquire, in his individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-02-388-2) Submitted: November 19, 2002 Decided: December 11, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7122 GARY S. GUTMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEBORAH CRAWFORD; JOHN KAY BANCROFT, Esquire, in his individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-02-388-2) Submitted: November 19, 2002 Decided: December 11, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished p..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7122 GARY S. GUTMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEBORAH CRAWFORD; JOHN KAY BANCROFT, Esquire, in his individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-02-388-2) Submitted: November 19, 2002 Decided: December 11, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary S. Gutman, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Gary S. Gutman appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000) and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Gutman v. Crawford, No. CA-02-388-2 (E.D. Va. July 1, 2002). 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
