Filed: Jul. 24, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6551 GARY LEWIS MILLER-EL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICKEY LEIB; L. E. BAULDING; GARY JOHNSON; JUDY HELLIER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-168-1) Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 24, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam o
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6551 GARY LEWIS MILLER-EL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICKEY LEIB; L. E. BAULDING; GARY JOHNSON; JUDY HELLIER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-168-1) Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 24, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6551 GARY LEWIS MILLER-EL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICKEY LEIB; L. E. BAULDING; GARY JOHNSON; JUDY HELLIER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-168-1) Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 24, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Lewis Miller-El, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Gary Lewis Miller-El appeals the district court’s orders dis- missing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint as frivolous and malicious under the Prison Litigation Reform Act and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Miller-El v. Leib, No. CA-00-168-1 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 9 & Mar. 29, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2