Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 views

    Tucker v. Branker, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Cornelius Tucker, a North Carolina inmate, appealed the district court's denial of his request to file a § 1983 civil rights claim. The district court denied the request because Tucker failed to comply with a pre-filing injunction requiring court permission before filing new claims. The Fourth Circuit dismissed Tucker's appeal as frivolous, agreeing with the district court's reasoning that Tucker did not receive permission under the terms of the injunction to file the new claim. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Tucker v. Branker, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    Cornelius Tucker, a North Carolina inmate, appealed the district court's denial of his request to file a § 1983 civil rights claim. The district court denied the request because Tucker failed to comply with a pre-filing injunction requiring court permission before filing new claims. The Fourth Circuit dismissed Tucker's appeal as frivolous, agreeing with the district court's reasoning that Tucker did not receive permission under the terms of the injunction to file the new claim. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-12-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-6857

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Cornelius Tucker, a North Carolina inmate, appealed the district court's denial of his request to file a § 1983 civil rights claim. The district court denied the request because Tucker failed to comply with a pre-filing injunction requiring court permission before filing new claims. The Fourth Circuit dismissed Tucker's appeal as frivolous, agreeing with the district court's reasoning that Tucker did not receive permission under the terms of the injunction to file the new claim. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent.

    Copyright:

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

    Tucker v. Branker, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Cornelius Tucker, a North Carolina inmate, appealed the district court's denial of his request to file a § 1983 civil rights claim. The district court denied the request because Tucker failed to comply with a pre-filing injunction requiring court permission before filing new claims. The Fourth Circuit dismissed Tucker's appeal as frivolous, agreeing with the district court's reasoning that Tucker did not receive permission under the terms of the injunction to file the new claim. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent.

    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. 96-6857

    CORNELIUS TUCKER, JR.,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    CAPTAIN BRANKER; J. B. FRENCH, Warden,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge.
    (MISC-96-20)
    Submitted:

    November 21, 1996

    Decided:

    December 4, 1996

    Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Cornelius Tucker, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the district
    court's order denying leave to file a 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1994) complaint for failing to comply with the terms of a pre-filing injunction. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion
    and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we deny leave
    to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss on the reasoning of the
    district court. Tucker v. McNeil, No. MISC-96-20 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 24,
    1996). 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.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like