Narrative Opinion Summary
Lennell Holloman's appeal of the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint has been dismissed as frivolous by a PER CURIAM opinion. The district court's dismissal, which occurred under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), is affirmed without binding precedent due to the unpublished nature of the opinion. The court determined that oral argument was unnecessary as the facts and legal issues were sufficiently presented in the submitted materials. The original case, Holloman v. Brown, was filed in the Eastern District of Virginia on January 21, 2009.
Legal Issues Addressed
Affirmation of Unpublished Opinionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court upheld the district court’s decision without creating binding precedent due to the unpublished nature of the opinion.
Reasoning: The district court's dismissal, which occurred under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), is affirmed without binding precedent due to the unpublished nature of the opinion.
Dismissal of Frivolous Complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Lennell Holloman's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
Reasoning: Lennell Holloman's appeal of the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint has been dismissed as frivolous by a PER CURIAM opinion.
Waiver of Oral Argumentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court decided that oral argument was unnecessary as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials submitted for review.
Reasoning: The court determined that oral argument was unnecessary as the facts and legal issues were sufficiently presented in the submitted materials.