Goodman v. Carrico

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6117
STEVEN WAYNE GOODMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
HARRY L. CARRICO, Chief Justice, Supreme Court
of Virginia, individually and in his official
capacity; P. CLARKE KATTENBURG, P.C., individ-
ually and in his official capacity; WILLIAM D.
PICKETT, individually and in his official ca-
pacity; THOMAS A. EDMONDS, Virginia State Bar,
individually and in his official capacity;
NOEL D. SENGEL, individually and in her offi-
cial capacity; ROBERT BROOKS ALTIZER, individ-
ually and in his official capacity; JAMES A.
BUTTS, III, individually and in his official
capacity; JOHN A.C. KEITH, individually and in
his official capacity; EDWARD B. LOWRY, indi-
vidually and in his official capacity; WILLIAM
G. MURRAY, individually and in his official
capacity; W. SCOTT STREET, III, individually
and in his official capacity; SHARON MAITLAND
MOON, individually and in her official capac-
ity; GEORGE ALLEN, Governor, individually and
in his official capacity; JAMES F. ALMAND,
individually and in his official capacity;
EDWARD M. HOLLAND, individually and in his
official capacity; JAMES GILMORE, Attorney
General, individually and in his official
capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CA-97-391-3)
Submitted: November 5, 1998 Decided: November 19, 1998
Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven Wayne Goodman, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Steven Wayne Goodman, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district
court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.
1998) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 1998). We
have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting
the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find that this appeal is
frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of
the district court. Goodman v. Carrico, No. CA-97-391-3 (E.D. Va.
Dec. 30, 1997). Although not explicitly addressed by the district
court, Goodman’s First Amendment claim was also properly dismissed
as frivolous. We deny Appellant’s motions for appointment of coun-
sel and to remand case and dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3