A. Corwin Taylor v. Joseph R. Frazer

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1545
A. CORWIN TAYLOR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JOSEPH R. FRAZER; D. KENT GILLIAM; WAYNE K.
TAYLOR; DEBRA C. TAYLOR; NATHANIEL M. COLLIER,
III; WILLIAM B. CAVE; PLATO GEORGE ELIADES,
II; THOMAS GORDON; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; MARK L. EARLEY;
RANDOLPH A. BEALES; JUDITH W. JAGDMANN;
GREGORY E. LUCYK, SR.; PETER R. MESSITT;
VIRGINIA STATE BAR; MARY MARTILINO; EDWARD L.
DAVIS; R. CRAIG HOPSON; WILLIAM S. FRANCIS;
MELISSA HOY; D.T.T. INCORPORATED; WILLIAM R.
SHELTON, Judge,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CA-01-680-3)
Submitted: August 15, 2002 Decided: August 19, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
A. Corwin Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Nathaniel Macon Collier, III,
Colonial Heights, Virginia; Hugh McCoy Fain, III, Mary Elizabeth
Davis, SPOTTS, FAIN, CHAPPELL & ANDERSON, Richmond, Virginia;
Jeffrey Hamilton Geiger, SANDS, ANDERSON, MARKS & MILLER, Richmond,
Virginia; Plato George Eliades, II, HILL, RAINEY & ELIADES,
Hopewell, Virginia; Thomas Gordon, GORDON, DODSON & GORDON,
Chesterfield, Virginia; Peter Robert Messitt, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; William S.
Francis, Jr., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
A. Corwin Taylor appeals the district court’s orders adopting
the two reports and recommendation of the magistrate judge and
finally dismissing this civil action. We have reviewed the record
and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See
Taylor v. Frazer, No. CA-01-680-3 (E.D. Va. Feb. 25, 2002, May 8,
2002). We dispense with oral argument and deny Taylor’s pending
motion for the appointment of counsel because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --