Filed: Feb. 15, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7683 LARKIE LYNCH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHNNY H. WILLIAMS; JOYCE WILLIAMS; RICHARD E. HUNTER, JR., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-549-5-F) Submitted: February 6, 2001 Decided: February 15, 2001 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7683 LARKIE LYNCH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHNNY H. WILLIAMS; JOYCE WILLIAMS; RICHARD E. HUNTER, JR., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-549-5-F) Submitted: February 6, 2001 Decided: February 15, 2001 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam o..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7683 LARKIE LYNCH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHNNY H. WILLIAMS; JOYCE WILLIAMS; RICHARD E. HUNTER, JR., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-549-5-F) Submitted: February 6, 2001 Decided: February 15, 2001 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larkie Lynch, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Larkie Lynch appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district’s opinion and find no revers- ible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the dis- trict court. Lynch v. Williams, No. CA-00-549-5-F (E.D.N.C. Oct. 20, 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
