Stuart Tompkins v. David Mitchell

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998308912-2]; denying Motion for other relief [998308899-2]; denying Motion [998290543-2]; denying Motion for default judgment [998240765-2] Originating case number: 1:08-cv-00322-GCM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998451874] [09-7224]

Download PDF
Stuart Tompkins v. David Mitchell Doc. 0 Case: 09-7224 Document: 62 Date Filed: 10/25/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7224 STUART WAYNE TOMPKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DAVID MITCHELL, Superintendent, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-00322-GCM) Submitted: October 1, 2010 Decided: October 25, 2010 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stuart Wayne Tompkins, Appellant Pro Se. Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, Appellee. Yvonne Bulluck Ricci, North Carolina, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Dockets.Justia.com Case: 09-7224 Document: 62 Date Filed: 10/25/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: Stuart Wayne Tompkins appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Tompkins v. Mitchell, No. 1:08-cv-00322-GCM (W.D.N.C. Tompkins' motions for default judgment, for a Apr. 14, 2009). temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, and for appointment of counsel are denied. 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 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?