Filed: Mar. 18, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8604 BRANDON WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PARHAM, Captain; BEAMAN, Ms.; L.T.; SCOTT, Ms.; L.T.; D. SIMONS, Superintendent, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:08-cv-00938-LMB-TRJ) Submitted: March 12, 2009 Decided: March 18, 2009 Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8604 BRANDON WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PARHAM, Captain; BEAMAN, Ms.; L.T.; SCOTT, Ms.; L.T.; D. SIMONS, Superintendent, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:08-cv-00938-LMB-TRJ) Submitted: March 12, 2009 Decided: March 18, 2009 Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circui..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8604 BRANDON WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PARHAM, Captain; BEAMAN, Ms.; L.T.; SCOTT, Ms.; L.T.; D. SIMONS, Superintendent, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:08-cv-00938-LMB-TRJ) Submitted: March 12, 2009 Decided: March 18, 2009 Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brandon Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Brandon Williams appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Williams’ brief alleges no error committed by the district court. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court. 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 in the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
