Tyrone Hurt v. William Clinton

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998908241-2], denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998851958-2], denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998849697-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998908239-2], denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998842367-2]; denying Motion to amend/correct [998867187-2] Originating case number: 1:08-cv-01050-LMB-TCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998925028]. Mailed to: Hurt. [12-1521]

Appeal: 12-1521

Doc: 18

Filed: 08/27/2012

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1521

TYRONE HURT,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM A. CLINTON, et al., Former President of the U.S.;
FALUN GONG; FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION;
WORLD ORDER; WORLD ORDER VIOLATIONS,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:08-cv-01050-LMB-TCB)

Submitted:

August 20, 2012

Decided:

August 27, 2012

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tyrone Hurt, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-1521

Doc: 18

Filed: 08/27/2012

Pg: 2 of 2

Hurt

the

PER CURIAM:
Tyrone

appeals

district

court’s

order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006) and imposing a prefiling injunction.
have

reviewed

the

record

deny

no

proceed

in

reversible

dismiss

the

appeal

court.

Hurt v. Clinton, No. 1:08-cv-01050-LBM-TCB (E.D. Va.

amend.
legal
before

We

the

court

reasons

stated

by

pauperis
the

and

district

We deny the motions to appoint counsel and to

dispense

contentions

the

forma

error.

we

for

to

find

Accordingly,

Oct. 21, 2008).

leave

and

We

with

oral

argument

are

adequately

and

argument

because

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the
the

facts

and

materials
decisional

process.

DISMISSED

2