Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 11 views

    Din-Watkins v. Robinson, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from a Virginia inmate. The district court had denied relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to the inmate. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and district court opinion and found the appeal to be frivolous. The Court dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Din-Watkins v. Robinson, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    11 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from a Virginia inmate. The district court had denied relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to the inmate. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and district court opinion and found the appeal to be frivolous. The Court dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-07-08 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-6086

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from a Virginia inmate. The district court had denied relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to the inmate. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and district court opinion and found the appeal to be frivolous. The Court dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    11 views2 pages

    Din-Watkins v. Robinson, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from a Virginia inmate. The district court had denied relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to the inmate. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and district court opinion and found the appeal to be frivolous. The Court dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 98-6086

    LONDELL ABDUL TALIB DIN-WATKINS, a/k/a Alice


    Watkins,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    FURMAN S. ROBINSON, Previous Assistant Warden;
    WILLIAM N. KEYSER, Food Service; BRENDA LEWIS,
    Nurse; LARRY HUFFMAN, Regional Director of
    Virginia Department of Corrections; RONALD
    ANGELONE, Director of Virginia Department of
    Corrections; GEORGE M. HINKLE, Warden, Haynesville Correctional Center,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
    District Judge. (CA-97-1877-AM)

    Submitted:

    June 18, 1998

    Decided:

    July 8, 1998

    Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Londell Abdul Talib Din-Watkins, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district courts
    order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1994) complaint under
    28 U.S.C.A. 1915A (West Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record
    and the district courts opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the
    district court. Din-Watkins v. Robinson, No. CA-97-1877-AM (E.D.
    Va. Dec. 15, 1997). 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