Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Nicole Banks v. Department of Corrections, 18-6031 (2018)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 18-6031 Visitors: 23
Filed: Apr. 03, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6031 NICOLE CHANTELL BANKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (7:17-cv-00404-MFU-RSB) Submitted: March 29, 2018 Decided: April 3, 2018 Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opin
More
                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 18-6031


NICOLE CHANTELL BANKS,

                    Plaintiff - Appellant,

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                    Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (7:17-cv-00404-MFU-RSB)


Submitted: March 29, 2018                                         Decided: April 3, 2018


Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Nicole Chantell Banks, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Nicole Chantell Banks appeals the district court’s order denying her motion for

leave to amend her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

Banks v. Dep’t of Corr., No. 7:17-cv-00404-MFU-RSB (W.D. Va. Dec. 18, 2017). 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




                                              2

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