Chase Hunter v. Paul Higg

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998926025-2] Originating case number: 3:12-cv-00513-JAG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999016243]. Mailed to: Hunter. [12-2046]

Appeal: 12-2046

Doc: 14

Filed: 01/07/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2046

CHASE CARMEN HUNTER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PAUL W. HIGGS, individually and in his official capacity as
Sheriff of the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia; WILLIAM
REYES, III, individually and in his official capacity as a
Deputy for the City of Fredericksburg Sheriff and in his
official capacity as a paid worker for the City of
Fredericksburg; CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG, Virginia; NICHOLAS
TALBERT, individually and in his official capacity as an
employee for the City of Fredericksburg Sheriff and in his
official capacity as a paid worker for the City of
Fredericksburg,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
John A. Gibney, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:12-cv-00513-JAG)

Submitted:

December 26, 2012

Decided:

January 7, 2013

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chase Carmen Hunter, Appellant Pro Se. Grant Edward Kronenberg,
MORRIS & MORRIS, Richmond, Virginia; Medford Jennings Brown, IV,
Jennifer
Lee
Parrish,
PARRISH,
HOUCK
&
SNEAD,
PLC,

Appeal: 12-2046

Doc: 14

Filed: 01/07/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

Fredericksburg, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 12-2046

Doc: 14

Filed: 01/07/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Chase Carmen Hunter appeals the district court’s order
denying her motion to appoint counsel.
reveals

that

we

previously

considered

affirmed the district court’s order.

Our review of the record
Hunter’s

arguments

and

Hunter v. Higgs, 479 F.

App’x 470 (4th Cir. 2012) (No. 12-1971).

Accordingly, we deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss this appeal as
duplicative.

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.

DISMISSED

3