Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 0 views

    Singleton v. Carrol, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Michael Glenn Singleton filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials which was dismissed by the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found Singleton's appeal to be frivolous, affirming the district court's dismissal. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Singleton v. Carrol, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views2 pages
    Michael Glenn Singleton filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials which was dismissed by the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found Singleton's appeal to be frivolous, affirming the district court's dismissal. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-03-11 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-7608

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Michael Glenn Singleton filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials which was dismissed by the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found Singleton's appeal to be frivolous, affirming the district court's dismissal. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    0 views2 pages

    Singleton v. Carrol, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Michael Glenn Singleton filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials which was dismissed by the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found Singleton's appeal to be frivolous, affirming the district court's dismissal. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 04-7608

    MICHAEL GLENN SINGLETON,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    SUPERINTENDENT CARROL, Johnston Correctional
    Center; VALARIE SMITH, Programmer Johnston
    Correctional Center; JENNIFER STRICKLAND,
    Transfer Coordinator Johnston Correctional
    Center; CHAPLAIN SHERMAN, Chaplain Johnston
    Correctional Center,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Terrence W. Boyle,
    District Judge. (CA-04-487-5-BO)

    Submitted:

    February 16, 2005

    Decided:

    March 11, 2005

    Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Michael Glenn Singleton, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Michael Glenn Singleton appeals the district courts
    dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
    1915(e)(2)(B) (2000).

    We have reviewed the record and find that

    the appeal is frivolous.

    Accordingly, we affirm the district

    courts dismissal of the case.

    See Singleton v. Carrol, No. CA-

    04-487-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Aug. 26, 2004).

    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 the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    - 2 -

    You might also like