Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Harris v. Clark, 03-2334 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-2334 Visitors: 22
Filed: Mar. 17, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2334 RODNEY VICTOR HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus K. S. CLARK, Virginia State Trooper, Virginia State Police Barracks with office at Giles County; J. BOWLING, Virginia State Trooper, Virginia State Police Barracks with Office at Giles County; SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, at Pearisburg, Virginia; DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES; GERALD W. DUNCAN, Treasurer, Giles County Treasurer's Office, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from th
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2334 RODNEY VICTOR HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus K. S. CLARK, Virginia State Trooper, Virginia State Police Barracks with office at Giles County; J. BOWLING, Virginia State Trooper, Virginia State Police Barracks with Office at Giles County; SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, at Pearisburg, Virginia; DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES; GERALD W. DUNCAN, Treasurer, Giles County Treasurer's Office, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-624-7) Submitted: March 11, 2004 Decided: March 17, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodney Victor Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Jim Harold Guynn, Jr., GUYNN, MEMMER & DILLON, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Rodney Victor Harris appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(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 Harris v. Clark, No. CA-03-624-7 (W.D. Va. filed Sept. 22, 2003; entered Sept. 23, 2003). 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