Filed: Feb. 03, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7488 CHARLES THOMAS DICKERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHRISTOPHER LAWLOR, FBI Agent; SEVERAL UNKNOWN NAMED AGENTS AND OFFICERS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-04-556-1) Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 3, 2005 Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Seni
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7488 CHARLES THOMAS DICKERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHRISTOPHER LAWLOR, FBI Agent; SEVERAL UNKNOWN NAMED AGENTS AND OFFICERS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-04-556-1) Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 3, 2005 Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senio..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7488 CHARLES THOMAS DICKERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHRISTOPHER LAWLOR, FBI Agent; SEVERAL UNKNOWN NAMED AGENTS AND OFFICERS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-04-556-1) Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 3, 2005 Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Thomas Dickerson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Charles Thomas Dickerson 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 deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Dickerson v. Lawlor, No. CA-04-556-1 (E.D. Va. Aug. 9, 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 -
