Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Coles v. Commonwealth of VA, 01-7945 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7945 Visitors: 13
Filed: Mar. 11, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7945 TIMOTHY LEE COLES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; LARRY W. HUFFMAN, Regional Director; LONNIE M. SAUNDERS, Warden; D. SWISHER, Ex-Hearings Officer; M. K. BASHAM, Corrections Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-01-131-3) Submitted
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7945 TIMOTHY LEE COLES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; LARRY W. HUFFMAN, Regional Director; LONNIE M. SAUNDERS, Warden; D. SWISHER, Ex-Hearings Officer; M. K. BASHAM, Corrections Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-01-131-3) Submitted: March 4, 2002 Decided: March 11, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy Lee Coles, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Timothy Lee Coles, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his amended 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin- ion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Coles v. Virginia, No. CA-01-131-3 (E.D. Va. Nov. 7, 2001). We also deny Coles’ motion for appointment of counsel and his motion for an injunction. 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. 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