Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Nelson v. Strawn, 96-7131 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7131 Visitors: 40
Filed: Feb. 26, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7131 JIMMIE NELSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TIM STRAWN, Officer; THE CITY OF MONCKS CORNER, Defendants - Appellees. No. 96-7632 JIMMIE NELSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TIM STRAWN, Officer; THE CITY OF MONCKS CORNER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-93-66-2-18AJ) Submitted: February 13, 1997
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                            No. 96-7131



JIMMIE NELSON,

                                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

TIM STRAWN, Officer; THE CITY OF MONCKS CORNER,

                                           Defendants - Appellees.



                            No. 96-7632


JIMMIE NELSON,

                                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

TIM STRAWN, Officer; THE CITY OF MONCKS CORNER,

                                           Defendants - Appellees.



Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-93-66-2-18AJ)


Submitted:   February 13, 1997         Decided:     February 26, 1997


Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
2
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jimmie Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra J. Senn, STUCKEY & SENN,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).




PER CURIAM:

     Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint (No. 96-7131), and
his Fed. R. App. P. 24 motion for leave to proceed in forma pau-

peris (No. 96-7632). We have reviewed the record and the district

court's order dismissing Appellant's § 1983 complaint on the jury's

verdict   and   find   no   reversible   error.   See   United   States   v.

Saunders, 
886 F.2d 56
, 60 (4th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, we deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss appeal No. 96-7131.

Further, in light of the disposition of appeal No. 96-7131, we deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss as moot appeal No.

96-7632. 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.




                                                                 DISMISSED


                                    3
4

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