Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Anthony v. US Attorney General, 02-1382 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-1382 Visitors: 2
Filed: Jun. 18, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1382 SAM ANTHONY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL; UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-01-635-2) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 18, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1382 SAM ANTHONY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL; UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-01-635-2) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 18, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sam Anthony, Appellant Pro Se. David J. Ball, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Sam Anthony appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his civil action for failure to comply with the court’s order to particularize his complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny Anthony’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Anthony v. United States Attorney General, No. CA-01-635-2 (E.D. Va. March 6, 2002). 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