Filed: Jul. 09, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6215 DANNY LAMONT YARBOROUGH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KRISTIN PARKS; MICHAEL S. HAMDEN; NORTH CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-96-31-5-H) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 9, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Aff
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6215 DANNY LAMONT YARBOROUGH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KRISTIN PARKS; MICHAEL S. HAMDEN; NORTH CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-96-31-5-H) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 9, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6215 DANNY LAMONT YARBOROUGH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KRISTIN PARKS; MICHAEL S. HAMDEN; NORTH CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-96-31-5-H) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 9, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danny Lamont Yarborough, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(d) (West 1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find the appeal to be frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Yarborough v. Parks, No. CA-96-31-5-H (E.D.N.C. Jan. 26, 1996). We dispense with oral argu- ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre- sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
