Miller v. Virginia

Fourth Circuit

Miller v. Virginia

42 F. App'x 612

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedAugust 1, 2002

DocketNo. 02-6571

StatusPublished

This text of 42 F. App'x 612 (Miller v. Virginia) 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

Miller v. Virginia, 42 F. App'x 612 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Alfred Lavell Miller appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2002) com[613]*613plaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. In the briefing order, Miller was warned that this court would not consider issues not specifically raised in his informal brief. See Local R. 84(b). Nonetheless, Miller’s informal brief does not challenge the district court’s denial of relief on the merits, but instead only addresses Appellees’ contention that he failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. 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.

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

PER CURIAM.

Alfred Lavell Miller appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2002) com[613]*613plaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. In the briefing order, Miller was warned that this court would not consider issues not specifically raised in his informal brief. See Local R. 84(b). Nonetheless, Miller’s informal brief does not challenge the district court’s denial of relief on the merits, but instead only addresses Appellees’ contention that he failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 F. App'x 612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-virginia-ca4-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack