Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 16 views

    Ballard v. Williams, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Mario Ballard's appeal of the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and denial of his motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals found Ballard's appeal to be frivolous. The Court denied Ballard's motion for a hearing en banc and dispensed with oral argument, stating that the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the case materials. The Court dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Ballard v. Williams, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    16 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Mario Ballard's appeal of the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and denial of his motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals found Ballard's appeal to be frivolous. The Court denied Ballard's motion for a hearing en banc and dispensed with oral argument, stating that the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the case materials. The Court dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-02-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-7924

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Mario Ballard's appeal of the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and denial of his motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals found Ballard's appeal to be frivolous. The Court denied Ballard's motion for a hearing en banc and dispensed with oral argument, stating that the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the case materials. The Court dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court.

    Copyright:

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

    Ballard v. Williams, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Mario Ballard's appeal of the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and denial of his motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals found Ballard's appeal to be frivolous. The Court denied Ballard's motion for a hearing en banc and dispensed with oral argument, stating that the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the case materials. The Court dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court.

    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. 02-7924

    MARIO BALLARD,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    DOCTOR WILLIAMS,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
    Judge. (CA-02-830-7)

    Submitted:

    February 20, 2003

    Decided:

    February 27, 2003

    Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Mario Ballard, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Mario Ballard appeals the district courts orders denying
    relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
    1915A(b) (2000) and denying his motion for reconsideration.

    We

    have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous.
    Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district
    court. See Ballard v. Williams, No. CA-02-830-7 (W.D. Va. July 18,
    2002; Nov. 25, 2002).
    and

    dispense

    with

    We deny Ballards motion for hearing en banc

    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