Filed: Oct. 22, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7277 JAMES B. SKIPWITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MELISSA E. FRASER, Assistant Public Defender; NORA J. MILLER, Commonwealth Attorney; WILLIAM L. WELLONS, Judge, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-04-452-2) Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 22, 2004 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and S
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7277 JAMES B. SKIPWITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MELISSA E. FRASER, Assistant Public Defender; NORA J. MILLER, Commonwealth Attorney; WILLIAM L. WELLONS, Judge, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-04-452-2) Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 22, 2004 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SH..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7277 JAMES B. SKIPWITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MELISSA E. FRASER, Assistant Public Defender; NORA J. MILLER, Commonwealth Attorney; WILLIAM L. WELLONS, Judge, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-04-452-2) Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 22, 2004 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James B. Skipwith, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James B. Skipwith appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. See Skipwith v. Fraser, No. CA-04-452-2 (E.D. Va. Aug. 18, 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 -
