Filed: Sep. 02, 2020
Latest Update: Sep. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6397 JERMAINE ANTWAN TART, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMESE VIGUS; MARK TROCK, Defendants - Appellees, and JOHN DOES; TABOR CITY MAILROOM STAFF, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:17-ct-03207-D) Submitted: August 21, 2020 Decided: September 2, 2020 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6397 JERMAINE ANTWAN TART, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMESE VIGUS; MARK TROCK, Defendants - Appellees, and JOHN DOES; TABOR CITY MAILROOM STAFF, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:17-ct-03207-D) Submitted: August 21, 2020 Decided: September 2, 2020 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6397
JERMAINE ANTWAN TART,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JAMESE VIGUS; MARK TROCK,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
JOHN DOES; TABOR CITY MAILROOM STAFF,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:17-ct-03207-D)
Submitted: August 21, 2020 Decided: September 2, 2020
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jermaine Antwan Tart, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jermaine Antwan Tart appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Tart v. Vigus, No. 5:17-
ct-03207-D (E.D.N.C. May 29, 2018, & Mar. 2, 2020). We grant Tart’s motion to
supplement his informal brief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2