Filed: Apr. 08, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7855 JOSEPH MARION HEAD, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TROY WILLIAMSON, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. R. Clarke VanDervort, Magistrate Judge. (CA-02-1460) Submitted: March 25, 2005 Decided: April 8, 2005 Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jose
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7855 JOSEPH MARION HEAD, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TROY WILLIAMSON, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. R. Clarke VanDervort, Magistrate Judge. (CA-02-1460) Submitted: March 25, 2005 Decided: April 8, 2005 Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Josep..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7855 JOSEPH MARION HEAD, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TROY WILLIAMSON, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. R. Clarke VanDervort, Magistrate Judge. (CA-02-1460) Submitted: March 25, 2005 Decided: April 8, 2005 Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Marion Head, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Joseph Marion Head, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his “Motion for Rehearing” and his motion for appointment of counsel. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the denial of the motions was not an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Head v. Williamson, No. CA-02-1460 (S.D.W. Va. filed Oct. 21, 2004; entered Oct. 22, 2004). 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. The motion for acquittal and “10 zillion dollars tax free” is denied. AFFIRMED - 2 -
