Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Malcolm Muhammad v. Lieutenant Fleming, 15-6989 (2015)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 15-6989 Visitors: 44
Filed: Dec. 07, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6989 MALCOLM MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. LIEUTENANT FLEMING; Y. TAYLOR; HENRY PONTON; C/O COMPTON; C/O JUSTICE, Defendants - Appellees. No. 15-6991 MALCOLM MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. Y. TAYLOR; R. WICKER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:15-cv-00008-JLK-RSB, 7:15-cv-00057-JLK-RS
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6989 MALCOLM MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. LIEUTENANT FLEMING; Y. TAYLOR; HENRY PONTON; C/O COMPTON; C/O JUSTICE, Defendants - Appellees. No. 15-6991 MALCOLM MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. Y. TAYLOR; R. WICKER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:15-cv-00008-JLK-RSB, 7:15-cv-00057-JLK-RSB) Submitted: November 18, 2015 Decided: December 7, 2015 Before KING, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Malcolm Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se. Margaret Hoehl O’Shea, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Nancy Hull Davidson, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Malcolm Muhammad appeals the district court’s orders dismissing these actions without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Muhammad v. Fleming, No. 7:15-cv-00008- JLK-RSB; Muhammad v. Taylor, No. 7:15-cv-00057-JLK-RSB (W.D. Va. May 21, 2015). 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