Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Cochran v. Brown, 96-6575 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6575 Visitors: 22
Filed: Dec. 24, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6575 ROBERT MORRIS COCHRAN, a/k/a Michael The Archangel, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JESSE BROWN, Secretary of Veteran Affairs; MICHAEL BOSWORTH, Assistant District Counsel; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-96-70-5-H) Submitted: October 15, 1996 Decided: December 24
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6575 ROBERT MORRIS COCHRAN, a/k/a Michael The Archangel, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JESSE BROWN, Secretary of Veteran Affairs; MICHAEL BOSWORTH, Assistant District Counsel; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-96-70-5-H) Submitted: October 15, 1996 Decided: December 24, 1996 Before HALL and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Morris Cochran, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert Morris Cochran, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1994), amended by Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). We have reviewed the record, and we conclude that the district court's dismissal of Cochran's complaint as frivolous was not an abuse of its discretion. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Cochran v. Brown, No. CA-96-70-5- H (E.D.N.C. Mar. 19, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 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