Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Carter v. State of Virginia, 02-1836 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-1836 Visitors: 19
Filed: Sep. 27, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1836 KENNETH O. CARTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF VIRGINIA, Government Employer Fault Liable; LAWSUIT RECIPIENT AND REPRESENTATIVE FOR STATE OF VIRGINIA GOVERNMENT, Attorney General, Jerry W. Kilgore; GROUNDS FOR DEFENDANT FAULT LIABLE IS EMPLOYEE MISUSE OF LAW AUTHORITY CAUSE PLAINTIFF, Defendants - Appellees. No. 02-1839 KENNETH O. CARTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JACK GOLDBERG, a/k/a Jake Goldberg; LAWS
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1836 KENNETH O. CARTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF VIRGINIA, Government Employer Fault Liable; LAWSUIT RECIPIENT AND REPRESENTATIVE FOR STATE OF VIRGINIA GOVERNMENT, Attorney General, Jerry W. Kilgore; GROUNDS FOR DEFENDANT FAULT LIABLE IS EMPLOYEE MISUSE OF LAW AUTHORITY CAUSE PLAINTIFF, Defendants - Appellees. No. 02-1839 KENNETH O. CARTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JACK GOLDBERG, a/k/a Jake Goldberg; LAWSUIT RECIPIENT AND REPRESENTATIVE FOR STATE OF VIRGINIA GOVERNMENT, ATTORNEY GENERAL, JERRY W. KILGORE; GROUNDS FOR COMPENSATION DEFENDANT'S MISUSE OF LAW AUTHORITY CAUSE PLAINTIFF, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-18-4, CA-02-17) Submitted: September 19, 2002 Decided: September 27, 2002 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth O. Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Kenneth O. Carter seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeals on the reasoning of the district court. See Carter v. State of Virginia, No. CA-02-18-4 (E.D. Va. July 25, 2002); Carter v. Goldberg, No. CA-02-17 (E.D. Va. July 25, 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. DISMISSED 3
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