Filed: Nov. 21, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6728 MARVIN G. MAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JUSTICES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cv-00413-TSE) Submitted: November 15, 2007 Decided: November 21, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marvin G. May, Appe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6728 MARVIN G. MAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JUSTICES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cv-00413-TSE) Submitted: November 15, 2007 Decided: November 21, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marvin G. May, Appel..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6728 MARVIN G. MAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JUSTICES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cv-00413-TSE) Submitted: November 15, 2007 Decided: November 21, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marvin G. May, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marvin G. May appeals the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, while we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See May v. Justices, No. 1:07-cv-00413-TSE (E.D. Va. filed May 1, 2007 & entered May 2, 2007). 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 -