Filed: Mar. 17, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2456 RODNEY VICTOR HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BRETT RADER, Property Manager, Giles County Housing and Development Corporation, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-571-7) Submitted: March 11, 2004 Decided: March 17, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by u
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2456 RODNEY VICTOR HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BRETT RADER, Property Manager, Giles County Housing and Development Corporation, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-571-7) Submitted: March 11, 2004 Decided: March 17, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by un..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2456 RODNEY VICTOR HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BRETT RADER, Property Manager, Giles County Housing and Development Corporation, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-571-7) 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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Clark Hatcher Worthy, Kenneth J. Riles, JOHNSON, AYERS & MATTHEWS, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 deny Harris’s motion to submit circuit court transcripts and all motions set forth therein, and we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Harris v. Rader, No. CA-03- 571-7 (W.D. Va. Nov. 6, 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 -