Filed: Jan. 24, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1687 HERSCHELL L. HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STANTON H. FERGUSON, JR., Chief, Operations Division; A. CATHERINE AMIDON, Chief, IMOO; ROSITA PARKS, Director; SHIRLEY HOHN, Shift Leader, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-96-239) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 24, 1997 Before HALL
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1687 HERSCHELL L. HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STANTON H. FERGUSON, JR., Chief, Operations Division; A. CATHERINE AMIDON, Chief, IMOO; ROSITA PARKS, Director; SHIRLEY HOHN, Shift Leader, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-96-239) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 24, 1997 Before HALL ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1687 HERSCHELL L. HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STANTON H. FERGUSON, JR., Chief, Operations Division; A. CATHERINE AMIDON, Chief, IMOO; ROSITA PARKS, Director; SHIRLEY HOHN, Shift Leader, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-96-239) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 24, 1997 Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Herschell L. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Herschell L. Harris appeals the district court's order denying his tort action as legally frivolous under 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915 (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 no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Harris v. Ferguson, No. CA-96-239 (E.D. Va. Mar. 21, 1996). We deny Harris's motions to appoint counsel, for discovery, for expedited treatment, and for production of documents. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2