Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Rodgers v. Hawkes, 00-6280 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-6280 Visitors: 11
Filed: Sep. 07, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6280 GERALD RODGERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BONITA HAWKES, Operations Officer, Haynesville Correctional Center, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-34-2) Submitted: June 9, 2000 Decided: September 7, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN,* MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curi
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6280 GERALD RODGERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BONITA HAWKES, Operations Officer, Haynesville Correctional Center, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-34-2) Submitted: June 9, 2000 Decided: September 7, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN,* MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald Rodgers, Appellant Pro Se. * Judge Murnaghan was assigned to the panel in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (1994). Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Gerald Rodgers, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 2000). 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. See Rodgers v. Hawkes, No. CA-00-34-2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 17, 2000). We dispense with oral argu- ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre- sented 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