Sherman v. Cacheris

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Sherman v. Cacheris

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6541

KELVIN D. SHERMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JAMES C. CACHERIS; CLAUDE M. HILTON; THOMAS S. ELLIS, III; JAMES R. SPENCER; LEONIE M. BRINKEMA; J. HARVIE WILKINSON, III; H. EMORY WIDENER, JR.; FRANCIS D. MURNAGHAN, JR.; SAM J. ERVIN, III; WILLIAM WILKINS, JR.; PAUL V. NIEMEYER; CLYDE H. HAMILTON; J. MICHAEL LUTTIG; KAREN J. WILLIAMS; M. BLANE MICHAEL; DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ; WILLIAM B. TRAXLER, JR.; JOHN D. BUTZNER; KENNETH K. HALL; JAMES DICKERSON PHILLIPS, JR.; ROBERT B. KING; W. NEIL HAMMERSTROM; UNKNOWN STAFF ATTORNEYS; UNKNOWN LAW CLERKS; UNKNOWN COURT CLERKS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-99-1867)

Submitted: November 20, 2000 Decided: December 6, 2000

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kelvin D. Sherman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Kelvin D. Sherman appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp.

2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin-

ion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dis-

miss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Sherman

v. Cacheris, No. CA-99-1867 (E.D. Va. Mar. 21, 2000). 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

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished