Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Carter v. Fluvanna Corr Ctr, 03-6769 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-6769 Visitors: 13
Filed: Sep. 08, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6769 PATRICE MUNSELLE CARTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FLUVANNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER FOR WOMEN; PATRICIA HUFFMAN, Warden; FLUVANNA MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, Health Services; FRED SCHILLING; FAYE GARNETT; ANTHONY LYNCH, Director of Nurses, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-286-7) Submitted: August 2
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6769 PATRICE MUNSELLE CARTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FLUVANNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER FOR WOMEN; PATRICIA HUFFMAN, Warden; FLUVANNA MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, Health Services; FRED SCHILLING; FAYE GARNETT; ANTHONY LYNCH, Director of Nurses, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-286-7) Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 8, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrice Munselle Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Patrice Munselle Carter appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). 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 Carter v. Fluvanna Corr. Ctr. for Women, No. CA-03-286-7 (W.D. Va. Apr. 28, 2003). We deny the motion for appointment of appellate counsel. 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