Filed: Apr. 29, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7923 ARNOLD LYNN PARKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LEWIS BARLOW, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-95-525) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 29, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arnold Lynn Parks, Appella
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7923 ARNOLD LYNN PARKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LEWIS BARLOW, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-95-525) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 29, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arnold Lynn Parks, Appellan..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7923 ARNOLD LYNN PARKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LEWIS BARLOW, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-95-525) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 29, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arnold Lynn Parks, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 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. Parks v. Barlow, No. CA-95-525 (E.D. Va. Oct. 26, 1995). 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. AFFIRMED 2
