Samuel Jackson v. H. Poplin


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to amend/correct [998310615-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998310613-2] Originating case number: 3:10-cv-00107-GCM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998417347] [10-6441]

Download PDF
Samuel Jackson v. H. Poplin Doc. 0 Case: 10-6441 Document: 14 Date Filed: 09/02/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6441 SAMUEL R. JACKSON, Plaintiff Appellant, v. H. POPLIN, Programmer, Lanesboro Correctional Institution; S. HOVERMALE, Kitchen Supervisor, Lanesboro Correctional Institution; SGT. R. NICHOLSON; SGT. D. LENTZ, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:10-cv-00107-GCM) Submitted: August 26, 2010 Decided: September 2, 2010 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel R. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Case: 10-6441 Document: 14 Date Filed: 09/02/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: Samuel R. Jackson appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Mar. 12, Jackson 2010). v. We Poplin, also No. 3:10-cv-00107-GCM pending (W.D.N.C. motions to deny Jackson's appoint counsel and to amend his complaint. oral argument because in the the facts and legal We dispense with contentions the court are and adequately presented materials before 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?