Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Taylor v. Angelone, 01-6126 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6126 Visitors: 49
Filed: May 04, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6126 JEFFREY ALAN TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-99-2102-2) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 4, 2001 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affi
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6126 JEFFREY ALAN TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-99-2102-2) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 4, 2001 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Alan Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jeffrey Alan Taylor appeals the district court’s order denying his second motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. In the briefing order, Taylor was warned that this court would not consider issues not specifically raised in his informal brief. See 4th Cir. Local R. 34(b). Nonetheless, Taylor’s informal brief does not challenge the district court’s order, but instead addresses only the merits of his § 1983 claim. Accordingly, we affirm. We also deny Taylor’s motion for a certificate of appealability 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
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