Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Turner v. US Dept Agriculture, 00-2248 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-2248 Visitors: 5
Filed: Nov. 01, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2248 JOHN PAUL TURNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE; VIRGINIA STATE POLICE; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SER- VICES; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (MISC-00-37-7) Submitted: October 26, 200
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2248 JOHN PAUL TURNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE; VIRGINIA STATE POLICE; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SER- VICES; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (MISC-00-37-7) Submitted: October 26, 2000 Decided: November 1, 2000 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Paul Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John Paul Turner appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The district court denied the motion because Turner failed to comply with the terms of a prefiling injunction. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we deny the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Turner v. United States Dep’t of Agric., No. MISC-00-37-7 (W.D. Va. Sept. 15, 2000). 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