Filed: Aug. 21, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6543 ROBERT LEE BROCK, a/k/a Two Souls Walker, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WARDEN HINKLE; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORREC- TIONS, State of Virginia, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-96-153-2) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 21, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6543 ROBERT LEE BROCK, a/k/a Two Souls Walker, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WARDEN HINKLE; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORREC- TIONS, State of Virginia, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-96-153-2) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 21, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, S..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6543 ROBERT LEE BROCK, a/k/a Two Souls Walker, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WARDEN HINKLE; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORREC- TIONS, State of Virginia, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-96-153-2) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 21, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Brock, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 denying him leave to file a 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) action. 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. Brock v. Hinkle, No. CA-96-153-2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 22, 1996). We further deny Appellant's motions for the appointment of counsel, immediate relief, and public access. 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 deci- sional process. AFFIRMED 2
