Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

867 F.2d 608

Docket No. 88-7798.

Charles Nance Curry v. F. Paul Blannock

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted: Nov. 30, 1988. Decided: Jan. 17, 1989. Rehearing and Rehearing In Banc Denied Feb. 22, 1989.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1989-01-17

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Whisenant v. Yuam · Richard R. Byard v. Otis R. Bowen

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1989-01-17

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Charles Nance Curry, appellant pro se.

Robert DeHardit Hicks (Martin, Hicks & Ingles, Ltd), for appellee.

Before JAMES DICKSON PHILLIPS, SPROUSE and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Charles Nance Curry appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit.* Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Curry v. Blannock, C/A No. 88-455-N (E.D.Va. Oct. 18, 1988). We dispense with oral argument because the dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively.

¶2

AFFIRMED.

*

Curry also has three motions pending in this appeal. We find that Curry is not entitled to appointed counsel under Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160 (4th Cir.1984). Also, we have considered all pertinent documents relating to this appeal and deny Curry's motion to consider any other documents. Finally, we have considered the errors in the Docketing Statement brought to our attention by Curry in our review of this matter

/867/f2d/608 · .json · Public domain