Filed: Jul. 20, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1522 TONY FRANKLIN ELLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF VIRGINIA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-29) Submitted: July 15, 2004 Decided: July 20, 2004 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tony Franklin Eller, Appellant Pro Se. Unpubl
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1522 TONY FRANKLIN ELLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF VIRGINIA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-29) Submitted: July 15, 2004 Decided: July 20, 2004 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tony Franklin Eller, Appellant Pro Se. Unpubli..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1522
TONY FRANKLIN ELLER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF VIRGINIA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Chief District
Judge. (CA-04-29)
Submitted: July 15, 2004 Decided: July 20, 2004
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tony Franklin Eller, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Tony Franklin Eller appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his civil rights claim for failure to state a claim on
which relief may be granted. We have reviewed the record and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. See Eller v. Virginia, No. CA-04-29 (W.D.
Va. Apr. 14, 2004); see also Younger v. Harris,
401 U.S. 37 (1971)
(holding that federal courts will not intervene in ongoing state
criminal prosecution absent exceptional circumstances). 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.
AFFIRMED
- 2 -