Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Harris v. Ferguson, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Herschell Harris's tort action as legally frivolous. The district court had denied the action under 28 U.S.C. 1915, which allows courts to dismiss in forma pauperis complaints if they are frivolous. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. It also denied Harris's motions to appoint counsel, for discovery, for expedited treatment, and for production of documents.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-01-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-1687

    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 denial of Herschell Harris's tort action as legally frivolous. The district court had denied the action under 28 U.S.C. 1915, which allows courts to dismiss in forma pauperis complaints if they are frivolous. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. It also denied Harris's motions to appoint counsel, for discovery, for expedited treatment, and for production of documents.

    Copyright:

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

    Harris v. Ferguson, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Herschell Harris's tort action as legally frivolous. The district court had denied the action under 28 U.S.C. 1915, which allows courts to dismiss in forma pauperis complaints if they are frivolous. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. It also denied Harris's motions to appoint counsel, for discovery, for expedited treatment, and for production of documents.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 96-1687

    HERSCHELL L. HARRIS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    STANTON H. FERGUSON, JR., Chief, Operations
    Division; A. CATHERINE AMIDON, Chief, IMOO;
    ROSITA PARKS, Director; SHIRLEY HOHN, Shift
    Leader,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
    (CA-96-239)
    Submitted:

    January 9, 1997

    Decided:

    January 24, 1997

    Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Herschell L. Harris, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Herschell L. Harris appeals the district court's order denying
    his tort action as legally frivolous under 28 U.S.C. 1915 (1994),
    amended by Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110
    Stat. 1321 (1996). We have reviewed the record and the district
    court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
    affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Harris v. Ferguson,
    No. CA-96-239 (E.D. Va. Mar. 21, 1996). We deny Harris's motions to
    appoint counsel, for discovery, for expedited treatment, and for
    production of documents. 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