Curry v. Allen

53 F.3d 328, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 16730, 1995 WL 272594
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMay 10, 1995
Docket94-2539
StatusPublished

This text of 53 F.3d 328 (Curry v. Allen) 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.

Bluebook
Curry v. Allen, 53 F.3d 328, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 16730, 1995 WL 272594 (4th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

53 F.3d 328
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Charles Thomas CURRY, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
David W. ALLEN, P.F.C., individually, and in his official
capacity; Jeff A. Saunders, P.F.C., individually, and in
his official capacity; David Poston, P.T.L., individually,
and in his official capacity; John Glenn, Chief of the
Burlington Police Department; City of BURLINGTON, North
Carolina, Defendants--Appellees.

No. 94-2539.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 20, 1995.
Decided May 10, 1995.

Charles Thomas Curry, Appellant Pro Se. Allan R. Gitter, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Winston-Salem, NC, for Appellees.

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. 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.* Curry v. Allen, No. CA-93-597-2 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 3, 1994). 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

*

We deny Appellees' motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that Appellant's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis was untimely

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
53 F.3d 328, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 16730, 1995 WL 272594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curry-v-allen-ca4-1995.