Sindram v. Robelen
This text of Sindram v. Robelen (Sindram v. Robelen) 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UNPUBLISHED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. 10-1374
MICHAEL J. SINDRAM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DOUGLAS B. ROBELEN, State Actor,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
PATRICIA H. HARRINGTON,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:09-cv-01082-GBL-IDD)
Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: July 30, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael J. Sindram, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Michael J. Sindram appeals the district court’s orders
striking his “Verified Amended Complaint and Request for
Injunctive Relief” from the docket and denying his motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and dismiss the
appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Sindram v.
Robelen, No. 1:09-cv-01082-GBL-IDD (E.D. Va. Mar. 24, 2010;
filed May 21, 2010 & entered June 2, 2010). 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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Sindram v. Robelen, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sindram-v-robelen-ca4-2010.