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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6031 NICOLE CHANTELL BANKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opin
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6031 NICOLE CHANTELL BANKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini..
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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