Filed: Sep. 28, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6731 MARTINA VAN HOEF, Petitioner - Appellant, versus U.S. IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-04-76) Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 28, 2004 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Martina Van Hoef
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6731 MARTINA VAN HOEF, Petitioner - Appellant, versus U.S. IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-04-76) Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 28, 2004 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Martina Van Hoef,..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6731 MARTINA VAN HOEF, Petitioner - Appellant, versus U.S. IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-04-76) Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 28, 2004 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Martina Van Hoef, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Martina Van Hoef seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint which the district court construed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. See Van Hoef v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, No. CA-04-76 (E.D. Va. Mar. 23, 2004). 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 -
