Charles Nance Curry, Plaintiff-appellant, v. F. Paul Blannock, Defendant-appellee, 867 F.2d 608 (4th Cir. 1989)
Annotate this CaseCharles Nance Curry, appellant pro se.
Robert DeHardit Hicks (Martin, Hicks & Ingles, Ltd), for appellee.
Before JAMES DICKSON PHILLIPS, SPROUSE and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Nance Curry appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit.* Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Curry v. Blannock, C/A No. 88-455-N (E.D. Va. Oct. 18, 1988). We dispense with oral argument because the dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively.
AFFIRMED.
Curry also has three motions pending in this appeal. We find that Curry is not entitled to appointed counsel under Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160 (4th Cir. 1984). Also, we have considered all pertinent documents relating to this appeal and deny Curry's motion to consider any other documents. Finally, we have considered the errors in the Docketing Statement brought to our attention by Curry in our review of this matter
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
