Filed: Aug. 02, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6113 MICHAEL DUCHELLE GREEN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LES OSBORNE, Judge; DANNY FOX, Sheriff, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-04-735-3) Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 2, 2005 Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Duchelle
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6113 MICHAEL DUCHELLE GREEN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LES OSBORNE, Judge; DANNY FOX, Sheriff, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-04-735-3) Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 2, 2005 Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Duchelle G..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6113 MICHAEL DUCHELLE GREEN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LES OSBORNE, Judge; DANNY FOX, Sheriff, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-04-735-3) Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 2, 2005 Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Duchelle Green, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael Duchelle Green appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Green v. Osborne, No. CA- 04-735-3 (E.D. Va. Jan. 5, 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 -
