Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Givens v. Sykes, 98-7405 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-7405 Visitors: 12
Filed: Jan. 20, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7405 ARTHUR L. GIVENS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ABDUR RAHMAN Y. SYKES; JEAN JOYNER; EDWARD A. JACKSON; RANDALL E. LEE; JOHNNY W. TAYLOR, III; ROBERT R. NOWELL, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-463-5-CT-BR) Submitted: January 7, 1999 Decided: January 20, 1999 Before WIDENER, MURNAG
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7405 ARTHUR L. GIVENS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ABDUR RAHMAN Y. SYKES; JEAN JOYNER; EDWARD A. JACKSON; RANDALL E. LEE; JOHNNY W. TAYLOR, III; ROBERT R. NOWELL, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-463-5-CT-BR) Submitted: January 7, 1999 Decided: January 20, 1999 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur L. Givens, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Arthur Givens appeals the district court’s order dismissing his claims filed under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998), and dismissing without prejudice his complaints regarding his dis- ciplinary conviction. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we dis- miss his civil rights claims as frivolous and deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss his appeal of the dismissal of the habeas claims on the reasoning of the district court. See Givens v. Sykes, No. CA-98-463-5-CT-BR (E.D.N.C. Sept. 3, 1998). We also find frivolous Givens’s appeal of all claims dismissed as by the district court as frivolous. We dispense with oral argument be- cause 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