Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Muwakkil v. Hassell, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views3 pages
    Yaqub Hameed Muwakkil filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against justices of the Supreme Court of Virginia and the clerk of that court. The district court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Muwakkil appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding no reversible error. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented to the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-06-12 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-7975

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Yaqub Hameed Muwakkil filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against justices of the Supreme Court of Virginia and the clerk of that court. The district court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Muwakkil appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding no reversible error. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented to the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    1 views3 pages

    Muwakkil v. Hassell, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Yaqub Hameed Muwakkil filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against justices of the Supreme Court of Virginia and the clerk of that court. The district court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Muwakkil appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding no reversible error. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented to the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-7975

    YAQUB HAMEED MUWAKKIL,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    LEROY
    ROUNDTREE
    HASSELL,
    Chief
    Justice,
    Supreme Court of Virginia; ELIZABETH D. LACY,
    Justice, Supreme Court of Virginia; BARBARA M.
    KEENAN, Justice, Supreme Court of Virginia;
    LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR., Justice, Supreme
    Court of Virginia; CYNTHIA D. KINEER, Justice,
    Supreme Court of Virginia; DONALD LEMONS,
    Justice, Supreme Court of Virginia; G. STEVEN
    AGEE, Justice, Supreme Court of Virginia;
    HARRY L. CARRICO, Senior Justice, Supreme
    Court of Virginia; A. CHRISTIAN COMPTON,
    Senior Justice, Supreme Court of Virginia;
    ROSCOE B. STEPHENSON, JR., Senior Justice,
    Supreme Court of Virginia; PATRICIA H.
    KRUEGER, Clerk, Supreme Court of Virginia,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
    Judge. (CA-05-1118-1)

    Submitted:

    May 22, 2006

    Decided:

    June 12, 2006

    Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
    Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Yaqub Hameed Muwakkil, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    - 2 -

    PER CURIAM:
    Yaqub Hameed Muwakkil appeals the district courts order
    dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
    1915A (2000).
    error.

    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

    district court.

    See Muwakkil v. Hassell, No. CA-05-1118-1 (E.D.

    Va. Dec. 5, 2005).


    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    - 3 -

    You might also like