Jerry W. Hopkins v. Armstrong & Armstrong R. Morgan Armstrong Ward L. Armstrong

966 F.2d 1442
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJuly 7, 1992
Docket92-6444
StatusUnpublished

This text of 966 F.2d 1442 (Jerry W. Hopkins v. Armstrong & Armstrong R. Morgan Armstrong Ward L. Armstrong) 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
Jerry W. Hopkins v. Armstrong & Armstrong R. Morgan Armstrong Ward L. Armstrong, 966 F.2d 1442 (4th Cir. 1992).

Opinion

966 F.2d 1442

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Jerry W. HOPKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ARMSTRONG & ARMSTRONG; R. Morgan Armstrong; Ward L.
Armstrong, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92-6444.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 1, 1992
Decided: June 16, 1992
As Amended July 7, 1992.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Chief District Judge. (CA-92-272-R)

Jerry W. Hopkins, Appellant Pro Se.

W.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before PHILLIPS, WILKINSON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Jerry W. Hopkins appeals from the district court's order dismissing his civil complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.s 1915(d) (1988). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.1 Hopkins v. Armstrong & Armstrong, No. CA-92272-R (W.D. Va. Mar. 25, 1992). 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

1

We note that, to the extent Hopkins is challenging the State court's denial of in forma pauperis status to appeal his state tort action, this claim is frivolous. See Ganey v. Barefoot, 749 F.2d 1124

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
966 F.2d 1442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jerry-w-hopkins-v-armstrong-armstrong-r-morgan-arm-ca4-1992.