Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Willis v. US Attorney General, 03-1982 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-1982 Visitors: 30
Filed: Feb. 24, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1982 ROBERT S. WILLIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES; DIRECTOR OF FBI; PATIENT FIRST; PORTSMOUTH FAMILY PRACTICE; FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-127-2) Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 24, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, GR
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1982 ROBERT S. WILLIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES; DIRECTOR OF FBI; PATIENT FIRST; PORTSMOUTH FAMILY PRACTICE; FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-127-2) Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 24, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert S. Willis, Appellant Pro Se. George Maralan Kelley, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia; Kristina Helen Vaquera, TROUTMAN SANDERS, L.L.P., Norfolk, Virginia; Paul R. Schmidt, HUFF, POOLE & MAHONEY, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia; John Wayne Brown, Hugh Edward Black, III, Chesapeake, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert S. Willis appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). 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 Willis v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, No. CA-03-127-2 (E.D. Va. July 3, 2003). 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