Filed: Mar. 08, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2645 In Re: JOHN PAUL TURNER, Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (MISC-98-46-R) Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 8, 1999 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Paul Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2645 In Re: JOHN PAUL TURNER, Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (MISC-98-46-R) Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 8, 1999 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Paul Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent i..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2645 In Re: JOHN PAUL TURNER, Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (MISC-98-46-R) Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 8, 1999 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Paul Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John Paul Turner appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis because he did not comply with the terms of a prefiling injunction and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See In Re: Turner, No. MISC-98-46-R (W.D. Va. Oct. 22 & Oct. 30, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
