Filed: Aug. 07, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6656 JAKIE HAMMONDS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-793-5-BR) Submitted: July 27, 2000 Decided: August 7, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jakie Hammonds, Appella
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6656 JAKIE HAMMONDS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-793-5-BR) Submitted: July 27, 2000 Decided: August 7, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jakie Hammonds, Appellan..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6656 JAKIE HAMMONDS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-793-5-BR) Submitted: July 27, 2000 Decided: August 7, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jakie Hammonds, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jakie Hammonds appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Hammonds v. North Caro- lina, No. CA-99-793-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Apr. 3, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
