Richardson v. Foster, No. 05-2276 (4th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2276 LENIR RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DANIEL FOSTER, Officer; ANDREW LEE RICHARDSON; JUDITH NOWAK, M.D.; MINDY MICHAN; GISELLE AGUILLAR HASS, Psy.; LAURA HARRIS; MARY KING; L. PASTOR, M.D.; GAIL H. NELSON; MARITIZA RODRIGUEZ; BELINDA MASSARO; STEPHEN WRIGHT; PAUL B. BARNES, Officer; KENNETH A. HAYNES; HILDA BARILLAS; MARIO BARILLAS; TEREZA MERCHANT; SUSAN THOMAS; K. D. GANT; CARLA SCHIBENER; BARBARA DAYMUNDE; DEBBIE SNOW; F. ROBINSON; LAVANIA STUCKS; LEE H. HALLER, M.D.; BEVERLY BAYS, M.D.; KRISTINA BOOKER; KARA BROADBENT; VERA CARTER; STEPHENIE CHANDLER; PAT CHIU; ALISON DEARDEN; KRISTINA EIDE; TANYA EVANS; ERIN FREEMAN; LINDA HANSEN; DIANE JOHNSON; ROMA KAPOOR; JOYCE LANDRY; CYNTHIA MONK; TREACY MOORE; CAROLYN NELL; ANDREA OSINCHAK; JENNIFER OTTLEY; DIXIE PRUTT; VICTORIA RADAR; SARAH REDD; SHARON SLADE; CLAUDIA SNYDER; RITA SOUTHER; MEG STOUT; RUTH STOVER; KATE THURGOOD; NILMA TORRES; KAREL VAN DAM; NANCY WEAVER; WARREN LEWIS; ALICE ROOD; KENNETH SNYDER; NORMAN VAN DAM; JENINE SAXE; ANITA B. GLOVER; NANCY SMIT; CRISSANDRA COHEN; GRACE KARISH; KAGE NAFFISSIA; ABRAHAM'S; ROBERT H. HILL; KIRK MARSH, Bishop; BISHOP CENTREVILLE; BISHOP JOHNSON; LEWIS LARSEN, Bishop; HESOOK CHO; LEAH CAKE; ROBERT J. HILL; ALISA ROMAN; JUDITH RUMREICH; MICHAEL LINDNER; NICHOLE VANDERLICE; URSULA KOENIG; LORAINE NORDULAND; KEITH LANGHORN; GERALD R. CURAN; MARUM ROUSH; ROBERT W. WOOLDRIDGE; REX PAGERIE, Officer; KATRINA ENGLAND, Officer; THOMAS SUMMAKIE; ROBERT LITTLE; MARY LITTLE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, District Judge. (CA-05-1158-1-TSE) Submitted: January 19, 2006 Decided: January 24, 2006 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lenir Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Lenir Richardson appeals the district court order summarily dismissing her complaint as frivolous and for failing to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the district court order and the record and affirm for the reasons of the district court. See Richardson v. Foster, No. CA- 05-1158-1-TSE (E.D. Va., filed Oct. 25, 2005; entered Oct. 26, 2005). 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 - 3 -

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.