Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Tucker v. Johnson, Corr Off, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    This document is a summary of a United States Court of Appeals case involving Cornelius Tucker Jr. appealing a district court's denial of his request to file a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failing to comply with a pre-filing injunction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-04-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 95-7968

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a summary of a United States Court of Appeals case involving Cornelius Tucker Jr. appealing a district court's denial of his request to file a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failing to comply with a pre-filing injunction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Tucker v. Johnson, Corr Off, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a summary of a United States Court of Appeals case involving Cornelius Tucker Jr. appealing a district court's denial of his request to file a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failing to comply with a pre-filing injunction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case materials.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 95-7968

    CORNELIUS TUCKER, JR.,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    CORRECTIONAL OFFICER JOHNSON; LYNN PHILLIPS;
    FRANKLIN FREEMAN; GARY DIXON; R. HONEYCUTT; J.
    B. FRENCH; CAPTAIN BRANKER; SERGEANT LASSITER;
    SERGEANT THOMAS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER THISSEN;
    SERGEANT MONROE; SERGEANT JACKSON; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ANDREWS; SERGEANT BEALE; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ANDREWS; PSYCHOLOGIST CHERAN;
    CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ARTIS; SERGEANT DINEHART;
    CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SIGNAL; REGINA BROOKS;
    MR. STAMEY; MR. BUCK; MR. LOWRY; MR. MANN;
    MR. BAKER; SUPERINTENDENT LEE; MR. ROBINSON;
    SERGEANT SEIBER; MR. PAGAN; MR. STRICKLAND;
    MR. LONG; CAPTAIN WALKER; DOCTOR BALOCH;
    CORRECTIONAL OFFICER GREEN; EDUC. DETTINGER;
    DEPUTY WARDEN MCCABE,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
    Judge. (MISC-95-98-5-H)
    Submitted:

    April 15, 1996

    Decided:

    April 30, 1996

    Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit
    Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Cornelius Tucker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying
    leave to file a 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1988) complaint for failing to
    comply with a pre-filing injunction. We have reviewed the record
    and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.
    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.
    Tucker v. Johnson, No. MISC-95-98-5-H (E.D.N.C. Nov. 6, 1995). 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

    You might also like