Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Harris v. Morris, 03-2500 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-2500 Visitors: 6
Filed: May 11, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2500 RODNEY VICTOR HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANGI NICOLE MORRIS, Attorney At Law; GILMER, SADLER, INGRAM, SUTHERLAND & HUTTON, L.L.P., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-560-7) Submitted: April 23, 2004 Decided: May 11, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismi
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2500 RODNEY VICTOR HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANGI NICOLE MORRIS, Attorney At Law; GILMER, SADLER, INGRAM, SUTHERLAND & HUTTON, L.L.P., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-560-7) Submitted: April 23, 2004 Decided: May 11, 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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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; Phillip Verne Anderson, Kevin Osborne Barnard, FRITH, ANDERSON & PEAKE, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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) and state law. We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we deny Harris’s motions for a stay, to supplement the record with circuit court transcripts, and for a continuance, and we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Harris v. Morris, No. CA- 03-560-7 (W.D. Va. Nov. 14, 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