Richardson v. Superintendent of Piedmont Regional Jail

Fourth Circuit

Richardson v. Superintendent of Piedmont Regional Jail

584 F. App'x 57

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided September 26, 2014·No. Nos. 14-6348, 14-6495·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gregory A. Richardson appeals the district court’s order denying authorization to file his 28 U.S.C. 2241 (2012) petition and order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to reconsider and to recuse the district judge. Richardson is required to file a motion for leave to file a certificate of compliance form under a pre-filing injunction imposed by the district court. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Richardson’s motions for appointment of counsel and for a protective order and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Richardson v. Superintendent of Piedmont Reg’l Jail, No. 3:13-cv-00249-REP, 2014 WL 31433 (E.D.Va. Jan. 3, 2014 & Mar. 5, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gregory A. Richardson appeals the district court’s order denying authorization to file his 28 U.S.C. 2241 (2012) petition and order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to reconsider and to recuse the district judge. Richardson is required to file a motion for leave to file a certificate of compliance form under a pre-filing injunction imposed by the district court. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Richardson’s motions for appointment of counsel and for a protective order and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Richardson v. Superintendent of Piedmont Reg’l Jail, No. 3:13-cv-00249-REP, 2014 WL 31433 (E.D.Va. Jan. 3, 2014 & Mar. 5, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Richardson v. Superintendent of Piedmont Regional Jail, 584 F. App'x 57 (4th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

584 F. App'x 57 (Richardson v. Superintendent of Piedmont Regional Jail) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.