Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Brian Farabee v. Ann Baskervill, 15-7311 (2016)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 15-7311 Visitors: 21
Filed: Feb. 09, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7311 BRIAN FARABEE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ANN C. BASKERVILL, Atty; MEGHAN CAMPBELL, Atty; ARTURRO ROA, Atty; HON. PAUL CELLA; HON. ROBERT G. O’HARA; HON. JOSEPH TEEFEY, JR.; HON. MAYO K. GRAVATT; HON. ROBERT B. BEMAN BEASLEY, JR.; JUDY H. CUMMINGS; ANTHONY M. MCLAURIN; DISTRICT 7 PROBATION AND PAROLE OF THE VDOC; DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; HAROLD W. CLARKE, (Or Designee), Respondents - Appellees. App
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7311 BRIAN FARABEE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ANN C. BASKERVILL, Atty; MEGHAN CAMPBELL, Atty; ARTURRO ROA, Atty; HON. PAUL CELLA; HON. ROBERT G. O’HARA; HON. JOSEPH TEEFEY, JR.; HON. MAYO K. GRAVATT; HON. ROBERT B. BEMAN BEASLEY, JR.; JUDY H. CUMMINGS; ANTHONY M. MCLAURIN; DISTRICT 7 PROBATION AND PAROLE OF THE VDOC; DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; HAROLD W. CLARKE, (Or Designee), Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:15-cv-00332-MSD-DEM) Submitted: February 3, 2016 Decided: February 9, 2016 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian Farabee, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Brian Damon Farabee appeals the district court’s order dismissing his petition for a writ of error coram nobis for lack of jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Farabee v. Baskervill, No. 2:15-cv- 00332-MSD-DEM (E.D. Va. filed July 28, 2015; entered July 29, 2015). We grant Farabee leave to proceed in forma pauperis but deny his motion for appointment of 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer