Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

McElveen v. Commonwealth of VA, 95-7936 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7936 Visitors: 6
Filed: Feb. 28, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7936 CRAYTON E. MCELVEEN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA; GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA; GOV- ERNOR OF VIRGINIA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; THE COUNCIL ON HUMAN RIGHTS; BOARD OF EDUCATION, Director; DEPART- MENT OF CORRECTIONS, Director; AUGUSTA CORREC- TIONAL CENTER, Warden; JOHN/JANE DOE, Unknown Persons, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7936 CRAYTON E. MCELVEEN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA; GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA; GOV- ERNOR OF VIRGINIA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; THE COUNCIL ON HUMAN RIGHTS; BOARD OF EDUCATION, Director; DEPART- MENT OF CORRECTIONS, Director; AUGUSTA CORREC- TIONAL CENTER, Warden; JOHN/JANE DOE, Unknown Persons, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-95-429-AM) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 28, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Crayton E. McElveen, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Crayton E. McElveen, Jr., filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) com- plaint with the district court, which the district court dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1988). McElveen appealed, and this court affirmed the dismissal. McElveen v. Virginia, No. 95-7075 (4th Cir. Oct. 25, 1995) (unpublished). McElveen has now filed another, untimely notice of appeal from the district court decision in this case. As we have already upheld this decision, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the factual and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
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