Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Restoney Robinson v. Officer Butcher David Reynolds, Sergeant Aaron J. Johnson Midas Mattews, Secretary, 91-7351 (1992)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 91-7351 Visitors: 24
Filed: Feb. 14, 1992
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 955 F.2d 42 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. RESTONEY ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer BUTCHER; David Reynolds, Sergeant; Aaron J. Johnson; Midas Mattews, Secretary, Defendants-Appellees. No. 91-7351. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted Feb. 3,
More

955 F.2d 42

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
RESTONEY ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Officer BUTCHER; David Reynolds, Sergeant; Aaron J.
Johnson; Midas Mattews, Secretary, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 91-7351.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 3, 1992.
Decided Feb. 14, 1992.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Salisbury. Richard C. Erwin, Chief District Judge. (MISC-91-114)

Restoney Robsinson, appellant pro se.

M.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Restoney Robinson appeals from the district court's order enforcing a previously entered pre-filing injunction and refusing to allow him to file his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Robinson v. Butcher, No. MISC-91-114 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 25, 1991). 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.

2

AFFIRMED.

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