Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Clinton McDaniels v. Larry v. Starcher, and Any Other Judge Having the Power to Sign an Order Dismissing the Nobles Case No. 83-C-349, 96-6870 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6870 Visitors: 4
Filed: Dec. 04, 1996
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 103 F.3d 118 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Clinton McDANIELS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry V. STARCHER, and any other Judge having the power to sign an order dismissing the Nobles Case No. 83-C-349, Defendant-Appellee. No. 96-6870. United States Court of Appeals, Fou
More

103 F.3d 118

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Clinton McDANIELS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Larry V. STARCHER, and any other Judge having the power to
sign an order dismissing the Nobles Case No.
83-C-349, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 96-6870.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 21, 1996.
Decided Dec. 4, 1996.

Clinton McDaniels, Appellant Pro Se. Mario Joseph Palumbo, Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

N.D.W.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant, a West Virginia inmate, appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1994), amended by Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub.L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. McDaniels v. Starcher, No. CA-96-31-2 (N.D.W.Va. Apr. 24, 1996). 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.

DISMISSED

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