Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Gregory Richardson v. Superintendent, Piedmont Jail, 14-6348 (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 14-6348 Visitors: 7
Filed: Sep. 26, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6348 GREGORY A. RICHARDSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. SUPERINTENDENT OF PIEDMONT REGIONAL JAIL, Respondent - Appellee, and COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH MENTAL RETARDATION AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES BOARD (DMHMRSAS), Respondents. No. 14-6495 GREGORY A. RICHARDSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. SUPERINTENDENT OF PIEDMONT REGIONAL JAIL, Respondent - Appellee, and COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; DEPARTMENT OF
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6348 GREGORY A. RICHARDSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. SUPERINTENDENT OF PIEDMONT REGIONAL JAIL, Respondent - Appellee, and COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH MENTAL RETARDATION AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES BOARD (DMHMRSAS), Respondents. No. 14-6495 GREGORY A. RICHARDSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. SUPERINTENDENT OF PIEDMONT REGIONAL JAIL, Respondent - Appellee, and COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, MENTAL RETARDATION AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES BOARD (DMHMRSAS), Respondents. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:13-cv-00249-REP) Submitted: September 12, 2014 Decided: September 26, 2014 Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory A. Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Gregory A. Richardson appeals the district court’s order denying authorization to file his 28 U.S.C. 2241 (2012) petition and order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to reconsider and to recuse the district judge. Richardson is required to file a motion for leave to file a certificate of compliance form under a pre-filing injunction imposed by the district court. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Richardson’s motions for appointment of counsel and for a protective order and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Richardson v. Superintendent of Piedmont Reg’l Jail, No. 3:13-cv-00249-REP (E.D. Va. Jan. 3, 2014 & Mar. 5 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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