Filed: Jul. 12, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6696 JOHN PAUL TURNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:03-cv-000250-SGW) Submitted: June 15, 2007 Decided: July 12, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Paul Turner,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6696 JOHN PAUL TURNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:03-cv-000250-SGW) Submitted: June 15, 2007 Decided: July 12, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Paul Turner, A..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6696 JOHN PAUL TURNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:03-cv-000250-SGW) Submitted: June 15, 2007 Decided: July 12, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Paul Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John Paul Turner appeals the district court’s order denying Turner’s motion to reconsider a previous order dismissing this action for failure to comply with a prefiling injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Turner v. United States Dep’t of Justice, No. 7:03-cv- 000250-SGW (W.D. Va. April 30, 2007). 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 -
