Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Burns v. Angelone, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Joseph Michael Burns, a Virginia inmate. The district court had denied relief on Burns' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The appeals court reviewed the record and district court opinion and found the appeal frivolous, dismissing it for substantially the same reasons as the district court. The court dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-08-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-6357

    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 court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Joseph Michael Burns, a Virginia inmate. The district court had denied relief on Burns' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The appeals court reviewed the record and district court opinion and found the appeal frivolous, dismissing it for substantially the same reasons as the district court. The court dispensed with oral argument, determining 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
    4 views2 pages

    Burns v. Angelone, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Joseph Michael Burns, a Virginia inmate. The district court had denied relief on Burns' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The appeals court reviewed the record and district court opinion and found the appeal frivolous, dismissing it for substantially the same reasons as the district court. The court dispensed with oral argument, determining 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. 01-6357

    JOSEPH MICHAEL BURNS,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Department of
    Corrections; DAVID GARRAGHTY, Chief Warden;
    LORETTA KELLY, Deputy Chief Warden; CHARLES
    DAVIS, Warden; S. J. AVERT, Assistant Warden;
    G. P. WILLIAMS, Assistant Warden; WILLIAMS
    BUTTS, Security Sergeant; J. CAPPS, Grievance
    Coordinator; ANTHONY PARKER, Chief of Security; JIMMY EVERETT, Housing Unit Manager;
    RUFUS FLEMING, Regional Director; E. PARKER,
    Sergeant of Security,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, District Judge.
    (CA-01-63-2)

    Submitted:

    July 24, 2001

    Decided:

    August 21, 2001

    Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Joseph Michael Burns, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Joseph Michael Burns, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district
    courts order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp.
    2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. 1915A (West Supp. 2000).

    We

    have reviewed the record and the district courts opinion and find
    that this appeal is frivolous.

    Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal

    substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Burns v.


    Angelone, No. CA-01-63-2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 12, 2001).

    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