Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Fett v. Morris, 96-7496 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7496 Visitors: 10
Filed: Jan. 06, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7496 RICHARD S. FETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BRUCE C. MORRIS, Chairman, Virginia Parole Board; SANDRA COMBS; WINNIE DIXON; JOSEPH LEWIS; LINDA R. PITMAN; E. MONTGOMERY TUCKER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-96-749-R) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997 Before ERVIN and MOTZ
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7496 RICHARD S. FETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BRUCE C. MORRIS, Chairman, Virginia Parole Board; SANDRA COMBS; WINNIE DIXON; JOSEPH LEWIS; LINDA R. PITMAN; E. MONTGOMERY TUCKER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-96-749-R) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard S. Fett, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2) (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. Fett v. Morris, No. CA-96-749-R (W.D. Va. Sept. 12, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion requesting free copying of appeal papers. We dispense with oral argument be- cause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the deci- sional process. DISMISSED 2
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