Filed: May 17, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1165 JAMES ALLEN BOYLES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SCOTT LITTLE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-91-5) Submitted: May 12, 2005 Decided: May 17, 2005 Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Allen Boyles, Appellant Pro Se. Jam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1165 JAMES ALLEN BOYLES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SCOTT LITTLE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-91-5) Submitted: May 12, 2005 Decided: May 17, 2005 Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Allen Boyles, Appellant Pro Se. Jame..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1165 JAMES ALLEN BOYLES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SCOTT LITTLE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-91-5) Submitted: May 12, 2005 Decided: May 17, 2005 Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Allen Boyles, Appellant Pro Se. James C. Wright, Melanie Morgan Norris, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, P.L.L.C., Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James Allen Boyles appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Boyles’ motions to appoint counsel and for preparation of a transcript at government expense, and we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Boyles v. Little, No. CA-04-91-5 (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 21, 2005). 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 -
