Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Jerry W. Hopkins v. Armstrong & Armstrong R. Morgan Armstrong Ward L. Armstrong, 92-6444 (1992)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 92-6444 Visitors: 39
Filed: Jul. 07, 1992
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 966 F.2d 1442 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Jerry W. HOPKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARMSTRONG & ARMSTRONG; R. Morgan Armstrong; Ward L. Armstrong, Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-6444. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: June 1, 1992 Decided: June 16,
More

966 F.2d 1442

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Jerry W. HOPKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ARMSTRONG & ARMSTRONG; R. Morgan Armstrong; Ward L.
Armstrong, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92-6444.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 1, 1992
Decided: June 16, 1992
As Amended July 7, 1992.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Chief District Judge. (CA-92-272-R)

Jerry W. Hopkins, Appellant Pro Se.

W.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before PHILLIPS, WILKINSON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Jerry W. Hopkins appeals from the district court's order dismissing his civil complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.s 1915(d) (1988). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.1 Hopkins v. Armstrong & Armstrong, No. CA-92272-R (W.D. Va. Mar. 25, 1992). 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.

AFFIRMED

1

We note that, to the extent Hopkins is challenging the State court's denial of in forma pauperis status to appeal his state tort action, this claim is frivolous. See Ganey v. Barefoot, 749 F.2d 1124

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