Filed: Jun. 05, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6026 JOSEPH JOHNSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES LEWIS KING, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-1368-A) Submitted: May 25, 2000 Decided: June 5, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Johnson, Jr., Appellant P
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6026 JOSEPH JOHNSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES LEWIS KING, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-1368-A) Submitted: May 25, 2000 Decided: June 5, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Johnson, Jr., Appellant Pr..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6026 JOSEPH JOHNSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES LEWIS KING, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-1368-A) Submitted: May 25, 2000 Decided: June 5, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Johnson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Charles Lewis King, Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Joseph Johnson, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dis- missing his civil action as frivolous. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Johnson v. King, No. CA-98-1368-A (E.D. Va. Dec. 9, 1999). We deny Johnson’s motion to supplement the record on appeal and 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. AFFIRMED 2
