No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Blowe
v.
City of Norfolk
v.
City of Norfolk
Unpublished
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-2471
PAUL M. BLOWE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CITY OF NORFOLK JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT;
EVERETTE MARTIN, Judge; JEFFREY L. STREDLER;
JOHN TATE; CITY OF NORFOLK,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-97-998-2)
Submitted: March 26, 1998 Decided: April 6, 1998
Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul M. Blowe, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-2471
PAUL M. BLOWE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CITY OF NORFOLK JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT;
EVERETTE MARTIN, Judge; JEFFREY L. STREDLER;
JOHN TATE; CITY OF NORFOLK,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-97-998-2)
Submitted: March 26, 1998 Decided: April 6, 1998
Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul M. Blowe, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A(e)(2)(B)(i), (iii) (West Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Blowe v. City of Norfolk, No. CA-97-998-2 (E.D. Va. Oct. 17, 1997). See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A(e)(2)(B)(i). 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]