Young v. Alexander, 95-50699 (1996)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Number: 95-50699
Visitors: 8
Filed: Feb. 26, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-50699 Summary Calendar _ KEITH O. YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SONYA A. ALEXANDER, ET AL. Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of USDC No. A-95-CV-190 - - - - - - - - - - February 12, 1996 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Keith O. Young appeals the dismissal of his suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Young contends
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-50699 Summary Calendar _ KEITH O. YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SONYA A. ALEXANDER, ET AL. Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of USDC No. A-95-CV-190 - - - - - - - - - - February 12, 1996 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Keith O. Young appeals the dismissal of his suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Young contends ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-50699
Summary Calendar
__________________
KEITH O. YOUNG,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SONYA A. ALEXANDER, ET AL.
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of
USDC No. A-95-CV-190
- - - - - - - - - -
February 12, 1996
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Keith O. Young appeals the dismissal of his suit pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Young contends that the defendants violated
various federal statutes by keeping improper records and by not
releasing records to him. We have reviewed the record and
Young's brief and AFFIRM the district court's dismissal for
essentially the same reasons set forth by the district court.
Young v. Alexander, No. A-95-CA-190 (W.D. Tex. August 8, 1995).
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule
47.5.4.
Source: CourtListener