Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Robinson v. Albright, 00-7061 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-7061 Visitors: 30
Filed: Dec. 21, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7061 RESTONEY ROBINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus W. DOUGLAS ALBRIGHT, SR.; CARRIE A. MOCK; ROBERT MORGAN, Attorney General; WILLIAM F. BRILEY, Assistant Attorney; DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Highway Division; HERMAN G. ENOCHS, JR., Judge; P. TREVOR SHARP, Judge, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7061 RESTONEY ROBINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus W. DOUGLAS ALBRIGHT, SR.; CARRIE A. MOCK; ROBERT MORGAN, Attorney General; WILLIAM F. BRILEY, Assistant Attorney; DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Highway Division; HERMAN G. ENOCHS, JR., Judge; P. TREVOR SHARP, Judge, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-00-187-1) Submitted: December 14, 2000 Decided: December 21, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Restoney Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Restoney Robinson appeals from the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing without prejudice Robinson’s complaint for failure to comply with a prefiling injunction issued in Robinson v. Frederick, C-88-898-S (M.D.N.C. Oct. 11, 1989). Our review of the record and the dis- trict court’s opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Robinson v. Albright, No. CA-00-187-1 (M.D.N.C. June 23, 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. AFFIRMED 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