Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Carter v. Meade, 95-6951 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-6951 Visitors: 8
Filed: May 29, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-6951 LEONARD CARTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CAROLYN MEADE, Ms., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, District Judge. (CA-95-53-2) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 29, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leonard Carter, Appellant Pr
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-6951 LEONARD CARTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CAROLYN MEADE, Ms., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, District Judge. (CA-95-53-2) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 29, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leonard Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing as frivolous Appellant's action challenging the credit he received for time served in jail in West Virginia. We have reviewed the rec- ord and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Although the district court stated that it was denying Appellant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the court filed the complaint and dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915(d) (1988). By filing the complaint, we find that the district court implicitly granted Appellant in forma pauperis status. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and affirm the district court's order as modified to reflect that Appellant proceeded in forma pauperis in the district court. 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. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED 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