Filed: Dec. 04, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6857 CORNELIUS TUCKER, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CAPTAIN BRANKER; J. B. FRENCH, Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (MISC-96-20) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 4, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Corneli
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6857 CORNELIUS TUCKER, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CAPTAIN BRANKER; J. B. FRENCH, Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (MISC-96-20) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 4, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Corneliu..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6857 CORNELIUS TUCKER, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CAPTAIN BRANKER; J. B. FRENCH, Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (MISC-96-20) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 4, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cornelius Tucker, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the district court's order denying leave to file a 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) com- plaint for failing to comply with the terms of a pre-filing injunc- tion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. Tucker v. McNeil, No. MISC-96-20 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 24, 1996). 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 decisional process. DISMISSED 2
