Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Lewis v. Matko, 96-2792 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-2792 Visitors: 32
Filed: Aug. 20, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2792 RICKY L. LEWIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EDMOND J. MATKO, Prosecuting Attorney of Har- rison County, and individually; J. W. MCGAHAN, as police officer for the City of Clarksburg, WV and individually; THOMAS A. BEDELL, Judge of Harrison County and parties unknown, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Distr
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2792 RICKY L. LEWIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EDMOND J. MATKO, Prosecuting Attorney of Har- rison County, and individually; J. W. MCGAHAN, as police officer for the City of Clarksburg, WV and individually; THOMAS A. BEDELL, Judge of Harrison County and parties unknown, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (CA-96-200-1) Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 20, 1997 Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ricky L. Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his complaint alleging violations under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983-1986 (1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion dismissing the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1994) as frivolous (current version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2) (West Supp. 1997)), and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Lewis v. Matko, No. CA-96-200- 1 (N.D.W. Va. Nov. 22, 1996). To the extent the order is unclear, the dismissal is without prejudice. 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. 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