Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Mills v. Warden, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to place Albert Curtis Mills' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint on the unassigned docket in accordance with a pre-filing injunction against Mills. The district court had concluded that Mills' complaint did not err in being placed on the unassigned docket. The Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and also found no error in the district court's decision. The Court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-08-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-6371

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to place Albert Curtis Mills' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint on the unassigned docket in accordance with a pre-filing injunction against Mills. The district court had concluded that Mills' complaint did not err in being placed on the unassigned docket. The Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and also found no error in the district court's decision. The Court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Mills v. Warden, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to place Albert Curtis Mills' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint on the unassigned docket in accordance with a pre-filing injunction against Mills. The district court had concluded that Mills' complaint did not err in being placed on the unassigned docket. The Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and also found no error in the district court's decision. The Court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 08-6371

    ALBERT CURTIS MILLS,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    WARDEN,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt.
    Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.
    (8:07-cv-03466-DKC)

    Submitted:

    August 14, 2008

    Decided:

    August 19, 2008

    Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Albert Curtis Mills, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Albert Curtis Mills seeks to appeal the district courts
    order

    placing

    his

    42

    U.S.C.

    1983

    (2000)

    complaint

    on

    the

    unassigned docket in accordance with Mills pre-filing injunction.


    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that the
    district court did not err. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
    stated

    by

    the

    district

    court.

    See

    8:07-cv-03466-DKC (D. Md. Jan. 8, 2008).

    Mills

    v.

    Warden,

    No.

    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