Robert Stanley Jernigan, Plaintifff Appellant, v. Wayne Estella, Warden; California Department Ofcorrections; State of California; Barry T. Labarbera,district Attorney; District Attorney's Office, San Luisobispo County; the County of San Luis Obispo, California;edward Williams, Sheriff; Sheriff's Department, San Luisobispo County; Patricia Ashbaugh, Attorney; Municipalcourt, San Luis Obispo County; Public Defender's Office,san Luis Obispo County; James D. Ream, Judge, San Luisobispo Municipal Court; Edward Woolpert, Judge; Superiorcourt, San Luis Obispo County; George Deukmejian, Governor;state of Oklahoma; Gary Maynard, Director, Oklahomadepartment of Corrections, State of Oklahoma; Jeffery S.wolfe, Magistrate, United States District Court for Thenorthern District of Oklahoma; Frank Thurman; the Tulsacounty Sheriff's Department; James Moody, Deputy Sheriff;the County of Tulsa, Oklahoma; D.e. Cheek, Judge; Robertw. Duling, Judge; Commonwealth of Virginia, Defendants Appellees, 19 F.3d 1429 (4th Cir. 1994)

 Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 19 F.3d 1429 (4th Cir. 1994) Submitted: Jan. 20, 1994. Decided: Feb. 25, 1994

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (MISC-93-127, MISC-93-128, MISC-93-129, MISC-93-130, MISC-93-131, MISC-93-132, MISC-93-133, MISC-93-134, MISC-93-135, MISC-93-136, MISC-93-137, MISC-93-152)

Robert Stanley Jernigan, Appellant Pro Se.

E.D. Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying Appellant's motions for appointment of counsel, and denying reconsideration1  of earlier orders denying in forma pauperis status, in twelve separate civil actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we deny in forma pauperis status and affirm on the reasoning of the district court.2  Jernigan v. Estella, Nos. MISC-93-127; MISC-93-128; MISC-93-129; MISC-93-130; MISC-93-131; MISC-93-132; MISC-93-133; MISC-93-134; MISC-93-135; MISC-93-136; MISC-93-137; MISC-93-152 (E.D. Va. Oct. 15, 1993). 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

 1

Because Appellant's request for reconsideration was filed outside the ten-day period provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 59, it must be construed as a Rule 60(b) motion

 2

We deny Appellant's Motion to Amend

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.