Filed: Jul. 01, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2465 RODNEY VICTOR HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BRET RADER, Property Manager, Giles County Housing and Development Corporation; ANN ANGERT, President of Giles County Housing and Development Corporation and President of GPL, Inc.; DARREN LIGHT, Vice President of GPL, Inc., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior Dist
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2465 RODNEY VICTOR HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BRET RADER, Property Manager, Giles County Housing and Development Corporation; ANN ANGERT, President of Giles County Housing and Development Corporation and President of GPL, Inc.; DARREN LIGHT, Vice President of GPL, Inc., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior Distr..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2465 RODNEY VICTOR HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BRET RADER, Property Manager, Giles County Housing and Development Corporation; ANN ANGERT, President of Giles County Housing and Development Corporation and President of GPL, Inc.; DARREN LIGHT, Vice President of GPL, Inc., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-572-7) Submitted: June 16, 2004 Decided: July 1, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodney Victor Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth John Ries, JOHNSON, AYERS & MATTHEWS, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 complaint alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we deny Harris’s motion for a continuance and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Harris v. Rader, No. CA-03-572-7 (W.D. Va. Nov. 13, 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 -