Filed: Feb. 03, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2440 SAMUEL D. QUINN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-97-695-R) Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 3, 1998 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel D. Quinn, Appell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2440 SAMUEL D. QUINN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-97-695-R) Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 3, 1998 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel D. Quinn, Appella..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2440 SAMUEL D. QUINN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-97-695-R) Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 3, 1998 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel D. Quinn, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Samuel D. Quinn appeals the district court's order dismissing his complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915(e)(2) (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. Quinn v. Franklin Cnty Board of Supervisors, No. CA-97-695-R (W.D. Va. Oct. 15, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
