Filed: Feb. 27, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7924 MARIO BALLARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-830-7) Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 27, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mario Ballard, Appellant Pro Se. Unpub
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7924 MARIO BALLARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-830-7) Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 27, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mario Ballard, Appellant Pro Se. Unpubl..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7924 MARIO BALLARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-830-7) Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 27, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mario Ballard, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Mario Ballard appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000) and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Ballard v. Williams, No. CA-02-830-7 (W.D. Va. July 18, 2002; Nov. 25, 2002). We deny Ballard’s motion for hearing en banc 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. DISMISSED 2
