Filed: Jul. 31, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6296 ANTHONY ATKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RON ANGELONE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-96-149-R) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 31, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Atkins, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinion
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6296 ANTHONY ATKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RON ANGELONE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-96-149-R) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 31, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Atkins, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6296 ANTHONY ATKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RON ANGELONE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-96-149-R) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 31, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Atkins, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. ยง 1983 (1988) complaint as frivolous. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Atkins v. Angelone, No. CA-96-149-R (W.D. Va. Feb. 14, 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. AFFIRMED 2
