Filed: May 06, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6132 HASSAN MALIK ALI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAVID BEACH, Clerk; SHAWN A. KEY, Deputy Clerk, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-04-1502-1) Submitted: April 28, 2005 Decided: May 6, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hass
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6132 HASSAN MALIK ALI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAVID BEACH, Clerk; SHAWN A. KEY, Deputy Clerk, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-04-1502-1) Submitted: April 28, 2005 Decided: May 6, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hassa..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6132 HASSAN MALIK ALI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAVID BEACH, Clerk; SHAWN A. KEY, Deputy Clerk, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-04-1502-1) Submitted: April 28, 2005 Decided: May 6, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hassan Malik Ali, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Hassan Malik Ali appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(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 Ali v. Beach, No. CA- 04-1502-1 (E.D. Va. Jan. 12, 2005). 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 -
