Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

McDaniels v. Starcher, 96-6870 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6870 Visitors: 5
Filed: Dec. 04, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6870 CLINTON MCDANIELS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LARRY V. STARCHER, and any other Judge having the power to sign an order dismissing the Nobles Case No. 83-C-349, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-31-2) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 4, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, a
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6870 CLINTON MCDANIELS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LARRY V. STARCHER, and any other Judge having the power to sign an order dismissing the Nobles Case No. 83-C-349, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-31-2) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 4, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clinton McDaniels, Appellant Pro Se. Mario Joseph Palumbo, Attor- ney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant, a West Virginia inmate, appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) com- plaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1994), amended by Prison Litiga- tion Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. McDaniels v. Starcher, No. CA-96-31-2 (N.D.W. Va. 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
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