Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Curry v. Pocahontas Times, 04-1076 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-1076 Visitors: 25
Filed: May 04, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1076 JUDY CURRY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE POCAHONTAS TIMES, County newspaper, business, located in Marlington, West Virginia; PAMELA PRITT, personally and in her professional capacity as Managing Editor, The Pocahontas Times; WILLIAM P. MCNEEL, personally and in his professional capacity as Editor and owner, The Pocahontas Times; JANE PRICE-SHARP, personally and in her capacity as Editor Emerita and owner, The Poca
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1076 JUDY CURRY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE POCAHONTAS TIMES, County newspaper, business, located in Marlington, West Virginia; PAMELA PRITT, personally and in her professional capacity as Managing Editor, The Pocahontas Times; WILLIAM P. MCNEEL, personally and in his professional capacity as Editor and owner, The Pocahontas Times; JANE PRICE-SHARP, personally and in her capacity as Editor Emerita and owner, The Pocahontas Times, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-106-2) Submitted: April 29, 2004 Decided: May 4, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Judy Curry, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Judy Curry appeals the district court’s order denying her motion to proceed without prepayment of fees. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Curry’s pending motions to proceed in forma pauperis and to expedite and dismiss for the reasons stated by the district court. See Curry v. Pocahontas Times, CA-03-106-2 (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 12, 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 - 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