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)
03-7037•Micheal Lee Spencer, Sr v. MARK EARLEY, Office of the Virginia Attorney General
03-7037Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitFeb 23, 2004
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7037
MICHEAL LEE SPENCER, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MARK EARLEY, Office of the Virginia Attorney
General; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Department
of Corrections; BRUNSWICK CORRECTIONAL CENTER;
OFFICE OF HEALTH SERVICES; ERIC M. MADSEN;
RONALD ANGELONE; GENE M. JOHNSON,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief
District Judge. (CA-01-1578-AM)
Submitted: December 24, 2003 Decided:
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Micheal Lee Spencer, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Philip Carlton
Hollowell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia; Michael Eugene Ornoff, ORNOFF & ARNOLD, PC, Virginia
Beach, Virginia, for Appellees.
Vacated by Supreme Court, December 6, 2004
-- 1 of 3 --
- 2 -
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 2 of 3 --
- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Micheal Lee Spencer, Sr., appeals the district court’s
orders granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss and denying Spencer’s
motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. See Spencer v. Earley, No. CA-01-1578-AM
(E.D. Va. filed May 30, 2003 & entered June 2, 2003, filed July 15,
2003 & entered July 17, 2003). We deny Spencer’s motion for
appointment of counsel. 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
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.