Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Thurston v. Seay, 03-1016 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-1016 Visitors: 12
Filed: Apr. 03, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1016 LEROY M. THURSTON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STEVE SEAY; AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. No. 03-1017 LEROY M. THURSTON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HERBERT BESKINS, Defendant - Appellee. No. 03-1018 LEROY M. THURSTON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CATHY COLLINS; CENTRAL VIRGINIAN NEWSPAPER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Wes
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1016 LEROY M. THURSTON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STEVE SEAY; AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. No. 03-1017 LEROY M. THURSTON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HERBERT BESKINS, Defendant - Appellee. No. 03-1018 LEROY M. THURSTON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CATHY COLLINS; CENTRAL VIRGINIAN NEWSPAPER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-02-7-3, CA-02-6-3, CA-02-5-3) Submitted: March 24, 2003 Decided: April 3, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leroy M. Thurston, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Leroy M. Thurston, Jr. appeals the district court’s orders denying his applications to proceed in forma pauperis in each of his civil actions. Thurston fails to establish the district court erred in denying him leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, and dismiss these appeals. See Thurston v. Seay, No. CA-02-7-3; Thurston v. Beskins, No. CA-02-6-3; Thurston v. Collins, No. CA-02- 5-3 (W.D. Va. Dec. 3, 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