Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Miller v. State of Virginia, 02-6571 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6571 Visitors: 23
Filed: Aug. 01, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6571 ALFRED LAVELL MILLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF VIRGINIA; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; SERGEANT BROWN, Sussex II State Prison, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-01-509-AM) Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: August 1, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dism
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6571 ALFRED LAVELL MILLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF VIRGINIA; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; SERGEANT BROWN, Sussex II State Prison, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-01-509-AM) Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: August 1, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alfred Lavell Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Garrett Hill, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Alfred Lavell Miller appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2002) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. In the briefing order, Miller was warned that this court would not consider issues not specifically raised in his informal brief. See Local R. 34(b). Nonetheless, Miller’s informal brief does not challenge the district court’s denial of relief on the merits, but instead only addresses Appellees’ contention that he failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. 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