Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

White v. Taylor, 03-7340 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-7340 Visitors: 10
Filed: Feb. 20, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7340 BILLY WHITE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SERGEANT TAYLOR, Defendant - Appellee, and DEAN BROCHARD, Chief Psychologist, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-02-385) Submitted: January 28, 2004 Decided: February 20, 2004 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7340 BILLY WHITE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SERGEANT TAYLOR, Defendant - Appellee, and DEAN BROCHARD, Chief Psychologist, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-02-385) Submitted: January 28, 2004 Decided: February 20, 2004 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Billy White, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Garrett Hill, Philip Carlton Hollowell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Billy White appeals the magistrate judge’s orders denying his motions for appointment of counsel in his suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000).* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. See White v. Taylor, No. CA-02-385 (E.D. Va. Sept. 22, 2002; July 24, 2003; Aug. 20, 2003). We also deny White’s motion for appointment of counsel on appeal. 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 * The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000). - 3 -
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