Turner v. Augusta Cty Sheriff

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6665

JOHN PAUL TURNER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

AUGUSTA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; AUGUSTA
GENERAL DISTRICT COURT; AUGUSTA COUNTY CIRCUIT
COURT; COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEYS OFFICE; VIR-
GINIA STATE POLICE,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 96-6672

JOHN PAUL TURNER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; DAVID S.
KUYKENDALL,

Defendants - Appellees.
 No. 96-6673

JOHN PAUL TURNER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DAVID S. KUYKENDALL,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 96-6685

JOHN PAUL TURNER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

A. LEE ERVIN,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 96-6743

JOHN PAUL TURNER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

2
BILL CLINTON, President; GEORGE ALLEN,
Governor,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Samuel G. Wilson,
District Judges. (CA-95-946-R, CA-95-1020-R, CA-95-1021-R, CA-95-
1026-R, CA-95-1114-R)

Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 12, 1996

Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Nos. 96-6665, 96-6672, and 96-6743 affirmed and Nos. 96-6673 and
96-6685 dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Paul Turner, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

3
PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying

Appellant's motions to reopen previous district court decisions and

denying Appellant's motions for reconsideration. We have reviewed

the records and the district court's opinions and find no rever-

sible error. Accordingly, in Nos. 96-6665, 96-6672, and 96-6743, we
affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Turner v. Augusta
County Sheriff's Dep't, No. CA-95-946-R; Turner v. Virginia Dep't

of Corrections, No. CA-95-1020-R; Turner v. Clinton, No. CA-95-

1114-R (W.D. Va. Apr. 12 and 17, 1996, and May 7, 1996). In Nos.

96-6673 and 96-6685, we deny certificates of probable cause to

appeal, to the extent that certificates of appealability are re-
quired, we deny such certificates, and we dismiss on the reasoning

of the district court. Turner v. Kuykendall, No. CA-95-1021-R;
Turner v. Ervin, No. CA-95-1026-R (W.D. Va. Apr. 10 and 17, 1996).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-

tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process. The motions for
hearing in banc are denied.

Nos. 96-6665, 96-6672, and 96-6743 - AFFIRMED

Nos. 96-6673 and 96-6685 - DISMISSED

4