The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
01-6532•Brett C. Kimberlin v. United States Parole Commission
01-6532Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJun 29, 2001
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6532
BRETT C. KIMBERLIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.
(CA-00-307)
Submitted: June 12, 2001 Decided: June 29, 2001
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brett C. Kimberlin, Appellant Pro Se. George M. Kelly, III, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Brett C. Kimberlin appeals the district court’s order dis-
missing his petition for a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 1915A(b)(1) (West Supp. 2000), for failure to state a claim. We
have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the
district court. Kimberlin v. United States Parole Comm’n, No. CA-
00-307 (E.D. Va. Mar. 5, 2001). 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.