Filed: Aug. 29, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1660 JOHN PAUL TURNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JUDGES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (MISC-01-21-7) Submitted: August 23, 2001 Decided: August 29, 2001 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dis
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1660 JOHN PAUL TURNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JUDGES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (MISC-01-21-7) Submitted: August 23, 2001 Decided: August 29, 2001 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dism..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1660 JOHN PAUL TURNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JUDGES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (MISC-01-21-7) Submitted: August 23, 2001 Decided: August 29, 2001 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. Judges, No. MISC-01-21-7 (W.D. Va. filed May 9, 2001; entered May 10, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2