Filed: Mar. 12, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6647 FRANK ANTHONY BLEVINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN R. DEWAN, Superintendent, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-307-2) Submitted: February 17, 1998 Decided: March 12, 1998 Before HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6647 FRANK ANTHONY BLEVINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN R. DEWAN, Superintendent, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-307-2) Submitted: February 17, 1998 Decided: March 12, 1998 Before HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6647 FRANK ANTHONY BLEVINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN R. DEWAN, Superintendent, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-307-2) Submitted: February 17, 1998 Decided: March 12, 1998 Before HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frank Anthony Blevins, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) complaint. 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. Blevins v. Dewan, No. CA-97-307-2 (E.D. Va. Apr. 21, 1997). We also deny Appellant's motions for transfer, for appointment of counsel, and for injunctive relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
