Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Burrell v. Jackson, 03-1767 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-1767 Visitors: 12
Filed: May 14, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1767 CHARLES DAVIS BURRELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus C. J. JACKSON, Defendant - Appellee. No. 03-1768 CHARLES DAVIS BURRELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus C. J. JACKSON, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (CA-03-198-3) Submitted: November 26, 2003 Decided: May 14, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAE
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1767 CHARLES DAVIS BURRELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus C. J. JACKSON, Defendant - Appellee. No. 03-1768 CHARLES DAVIS BURRELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus C. J. JACKSON, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (CA-03-198-3) Submitted: November 26, 2003 Decided: May 14, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Davis Burrell, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Meade Macon, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Charles Davis Burrell appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and entering a pre-filing injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Burrell v. Jackson, No. CA-03-198-3 (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 21, 2003 & entered Apr. 22, 2003; May 9, 2003). We deny Burrell’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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 - 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