Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Kindley v. Moore, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding an appeal filed by Jessie Benjamin Kindley, Sr., a Virginia inmate. The Court of Appeals reviewed Kindley's appeal of the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals found Kindley's appeal to be frivolous and denied his motions to present interrogatories and for production of documents. The Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasoning of the district court in denying Kindley relief on his § 1983 complaint.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-09-10 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-6897

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding an appeal filed by Jessie Benjamin Kindley, Sr., a Virginia inmate. The Court of Appeals reviewed Kindley's appeal of the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals found Kindley's appeal to be frivolous and denied his motions to present interrogatories and for production of documents. The Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasoning of the district court in denying Kindley relief on his § 1983 complaint.

    Copyright:

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

    Kindley v. Moore, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding an appeal filed by Jessie Benjamin Kindley, Sr., a Virginia inmate. The Court of Appeals reviewed Kindley's appeal of the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals found Kindley's appeal to be frivolous and denied his motions to present interrogatories and for production of documents. The Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasoning of the district court in denying Kindley relief on his § 1983 complaint.

    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. 02-6897

    JESSIE BENJAMIN KINDLEY, SR.,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    MR. MOORE, Counselor; J.V. BEALE, Warden;
    WAYNE BROWN, Assistant Warden of Operations;
    MRS. JOYNER, Business Manager; MR. WRIGHT,
    Assistant at Warden of Programs; MR. ROSE,
    Assistant at Warden,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District
    Judge. (CA-02-366-2)

    Submitted:

    September 5, 2002

    Decided:

    September 10, 2002

    Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Jessie Benjamin Kindley, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Jessie Benjamin Kindley, Sr., a Virginia inmate, appeals the
    district courts order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983
    (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915A (2000).

    We have reviewed

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

    Accordingly, we deny Kindleys motion to

    interrogatories,

    deny

    his

    motion

    for

    production

    of

    documents, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district


    court.

    See Kindley v. Moore, No. CA-02-366-2 (E.D. Va. May 30,

    2002).

    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