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)
12-7842•Brian Omar Braxton, Sr. v. COLE, Lt. Supervisor of housing unit 5
12-7842Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMar 1, 2013
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7842
BRIAN OMAR BRAXTON, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COLE, Lt. Supervisor of housing unit 5; HARRIS, Sgt. of
housing unit 5; THOMAS, Sgt. of housing unit 5; J. L.
NEWTON, Maintenance; SGT. AMSTED; C. O. BROWN; C. O.
RIDEOUT; C. O. JONES; C. O. DESBROW; SGT. SWINNEY; CAPT.
MAC,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga,
District Judge. (1:12-cv-00758-AJT-TRJ)
Submitted: February 26, 2013 Decided: March 1, 2013
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian Omar Braxton, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Brian Omar Braxton, Sr., appeals the district court’s
orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint after a
28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2006) review, and denying what it construed
as motions for relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and/or
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Braxton has also filed an application to
proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, as well as a motion for
appointment of counsel. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant Braxton leave
to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his motion for appointment
of counsel and affirm the district court’s orders. Braxton v.
Cole, No. 1:12-cv-00758-AJT-TRJ (E.D. Va. filed Oct. 6, 2012,
entered Oct. 9, 2012; filed Oct. 17, 2012, entered Oct. 19,
2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.