Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Holt v. Kalimi, 95-3100 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-3100 Visitors: 4
Filed: May 28, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-3100 CURTIS HOLT, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MOHAMMED KALIMI, in his official and individ- ual capacity; JAMES POLAND, in his official and individual capacity; LINDA COREY, in her official and individual capacity; MARGARET BIBER, in her official and individual capac- ity; WILLIAM DEWEY, in his official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virgin
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-3100 CURTIS HOLT, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MOHAMMED KALIMI, in his official and individ- ual capacity; JAMES POLAND, in his official and individual capacity; LINDA COREY, in her official and individual capacity; MARGARET BIBER, in her official and individual capac- ity; WILLIAM DEWEY, in his official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-95-355) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 28, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis Holt, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. David Lee Ross, Jean Freeman Reed, VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY, Richmond, Virginia, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion 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. Holt v. Kalimi, No. CA-95-355 (E.D. Va. Nov. 6, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 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