Filed: Sep. 11, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6842 SERGIO GONSALEZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SERGEANT HERNANDEZ, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-5-1-MU) Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 11, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sergio Gonsalez, A
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6842 SERGIO GONSALEZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SERGEANT HERNANDEZ, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-5-1-MU) Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 11, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sergio Gonsalez, Ap..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6842 SERGIO GONSALEZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SERGEANT HERNANDEZ, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-5-1-MU) Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 11, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sergio Gonsalez, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Sergio Gonsalez appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint for failure to state a claim. 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 Gonsalez v. Hernandez, No. CA-00-5-1-MU (W.D.N.C. May 17, 2000). 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 2
