TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Jesse Wilson Jeffress v. Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States, in Her Official Capacity, or His Successor, Indispensable

Jeffress v. Reno, 989 F.2d 493 (4th Cir. 1993)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 19, 1993
Docket
No. 92-2510
Citations
989 F.2d 4931993 WL 76964
Status
Unpublished

Opinion

989 F.2d 493

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Jesse Wilson JEFFRESS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JANET RENO, Attorney General of the United States, in her official capacity, or his successor, Indispensable Respondent, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 92-2510.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 1, 1993 Decided: March 19, 1993

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-92-752)

Jesse Wilson Jeffress, Appellant Pro Se.

Debra Jean Prillaman, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION 1

Jesse Wilson Jeffress appeals from the district court's order dismissing this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1915 (d) (1988). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that the dismissal was not an abuse of discretion and this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court. To the extent that Jeffress requests this Court to take judicial notice of court documents, we grant the motions for judicial notice; however, we decline to adopt the factual assertions proffered by Jeffress. The motion for stay of injunction pending appeal is 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

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list