Filed: Oct. 21, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6731 JEFFREY A. PLEASANT, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Dept. of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:15-cv-00218-REP-RCY) Submitted: September 29, 2015 Decided: October 21, 2015 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6731 JEFFREY A. PLEASANT, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Dept. of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:15-cv-00218-REP-RCY) Submitted: September 29, 2015 Decided: October 21, 2015 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6731
JEFFREY A. PLEASANT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Dept. of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:15-cv-00218-REP-RCY)
Submitted: September 29, 2015 Decided: October 21, 2015
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey A. Pleasant, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeffery A. Pleasant appeals the district court’s order
denying his pleading titled “Notice of Removal of a Civil Action
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b),” dismissing the action as
frivolous, and issuing a prefiling injunction. ∗ We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. As the plaintiff in
the purported state court proceeding, Pleasant is not permitted
to remove the action to federal court, so the dismissal was not
error. Accordingly, though we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, we affirm the decision of the district court.
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
∗ Pleasant does not challenge in his informal brief the
imposition of the prefiling injunction. Thus, that portion of
the district court’s order is not before us. See 4th Cir. R.
34(b).
2