Filed: Oct. 03, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1649 MICHAEL R. FULLER; NANCY J. HALSTEAD, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CA-96-611-A) Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 3, 1996 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opin
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1649 MICHAEL R. FULLER; NANCY J. HALSTEAD, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CA-96-611-A) Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 3, 1996 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1649
MICHAEL R. FULLER; NANCY J. HALSTEAD,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief Dis-
trict Judge. (CA-96-611-A)
Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 3, 1996
Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael R. Fuller, Nancy J. Halstead, Appellants Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellants appeal from the district court's order denying
their request for an emergency restraining order and for records.
We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and
find no reversible error. See Younger v. Harris,
401 U.S. 37
(1971). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
court. Fuller v. Virginia, No. CA-96-611-A (E.D. Va. May 9, 1996).
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.
AFFIRMED
2