Filed: Jan. 20, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7137 KENNETH VALENTINE AWE, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. HAROLD CLARKE; RANDALL MATHENA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:14-cv-00248-JLK-RSB) Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 20, 2015 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7137 KENNETH VALENTINE AWE, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. HAROLD CLARKE; RANDALL MATHENA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:14-cv-00248-JLK-RSB) Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 20, 2015 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7137
KENNETH VALENTINE AWE,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE; RANDALL MATHENA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (7:14-cv-00248-JLK-RSB)
Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 20, 2015
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth V. Awe, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Valentine Awe appeals the district court’s
orders dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)
complaint as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)
(2012), and denying his motion to alter or amend. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Awe v.
Clarke, No. 7:14-cv-00248-JLK-RSB (W.D. Va. July 3 & 18, 2014).
We deny Awe’s motion for counsel. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2