Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
01-8052•William Lee Richardson, Jr v. United States District Court
01-8052Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit06.03.2002
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-8052
WILLIAM LEE RICHARDSON, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
U.S. SENATE MAJORITY LEADER; STATE OF WEST
VIRGINIA,
Plaintiffs,
versus
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT; W. CRAIG
BROADWATER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,
District Judge. (CA-01-609-2)
Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 6, 2002
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Lee Richardson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
William Lee Richardson, Jr., appeals the district court’s
order dismissing his civil complaint as frivolous. We have re-
viewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the
magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.
Richardson v. United States Dist. Court, No. CA-01-609-2 (S.D.W.
Va. Nov. 20, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.