Ballard v. Williams
This text of Ballard v. Williams (Ballard v. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7924
MARIO BALLARD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DOCTOR WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-830-7)
Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 27, 2003
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mario Ballard, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:
Mario Ballard appeals the district court’s orders denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b) (2000) and denying his motion for reconsideration. We
have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district
court. See Ballard v. Williams, No. CA-02-830-7 (W.D. Va. July 18,
2002; Nov. 25, 2002). We deny Ballard’s motion for hearing en banc
and 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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Ballard v. Williams, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ballard-v-williams-ca4-2003.