Full text
Singleton v. Hinkle
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6962
RAYMOND SINGLETON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
BRENDA LEWIS, SRN,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
GEORGE HINKLE, Warden; DOCTOR RODA; T. GASKINS, LPN; HILL; MRS. JOHNSON; SERGEANT WOOLARD,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-469-3)
Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: February 26, 1998
Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
— 2 —
Raymond Singleton, Appellant Pro Se. David Ernest Boelzner, Michael Lawrence Goodman, WRIGHT, ROBINSON, OSTHIMER & TATUM, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Raymond Singleton appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
court and deny Singleton's pending motions for discovery, general relief, production of documents, and appointment of counsel.* Singleton v. Hinkle, No. CA-96-469-3 (E.D. Va. Jan. 29; July 29,
1997). 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
* Singleton's notice of appeal, filed on June 19, 1997, speci- fies only the June 11, 1997 order denying his motion to file an amended complaint. We note, however, that his informal brief was filed within the appeal period from the final order of January 29, 1997 and complies with Fed. R. App. P. 3(c). Accordingly, we con- strue this informal brief as a notice of appeal from the January 29, and July 29, 1997 orders. See Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248 (1992) (holding that informal brief filed within appeal period may serve as notice of appeal where it complies with requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 3.); McLaurin v. Fischer, 768 F.2d 98, 101 (6th Cir. 1985) (noting that appeal from final judgment calls into ques- tion all previous rulings leading to judgment).