OpenJurist

917 F2d 22 Johnson v. Hembrick M Johnson

917 F.2d 22
Unpublished Disposition

Larry Ray JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Ms HEMBRICK, Ms. M. Riddle, Defendants-Appellees.
Larry Ray JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, Nurse Earling, Nurse Leon, Defendants-Appellees.
Larry Ray JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Doctor BARM, Nurse Logan, Sergeant Long, Defendants-Appellees.
Larry Ray JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
R. LIPSNER, Manager, David Williams, Warden, Hembrick, MS,
Defendants-Appellees.
Larry Ray JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
C/O SCOTT, Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 90-6092, 90-6128, 90-6596, 90-6867 and 90-7346.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 1, 1990.
Decided Oct. 26, 1990.

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-90-664-AM, CA-90-882-AM, CA-90-668-AM, CA-90-879-AM, CA-90-669)

Larry Ray Johnson, appellant pro se.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before DONALD RUSSELL and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Larry Ray Johnson appeals from the district court's orders denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing his civil complaints. See Graham v. Riddle, 554 F.2d 133 (4th Cir.1977). Our review of the records and the district court's opinions discloses that these appeals are without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Johnson v. Hembrick, CA-90-664-AM; Johnson v. Medical Dep't, CA-90-882-AM; Johnson v. Barm, CA-90-668-AM; Johnson v. Lipsner, CA-90-879-AM; Johnson v. Scott, CA-90-669 (E.D.Va. May 14 & June 26, 1990). We grant leave to appeal in forma pauperis in each of these appeals and deny Johnson's motion for appointment of counsel in No. 90-6128. 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.

2

AFFIRMED.