Filed: Dec. 02, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6740 DOMMION MCLEAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TANA JORDAN, Circuit Court Clerk, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-04-741-RAJ-TEM) Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 2, 2005 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dommion McLean, App
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6740 DOMMION MCLEAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TANA JORDAN, Circuit Court Clerk, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-04-741-RAJ-TEM) Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 2, 2005 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dommion McLean, Appe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6740 DOMMION MCLEAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TANA JORDAN, Circuit Court Clerk, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-04-741-RAJ-TEM) Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 2, 2005 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dommion McLean, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Dommion McLean appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint as frivolous. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny McLean’s motion to appoint counsel and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See McLean v. Jordan, No. CA-04-741-RAJ-TEM (E.D. Va. Apr. 25, 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. AFFIRMED - 2 -
