Filed: May 04, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6229 KERLEW BELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL BELL; D. A. MCGOWAN; R. H. FUTRELL; JOHN DOE, various John/Jane Doe officers to be named later, 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-00-804-5-F) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 4, 2001 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMI
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6229 KERLEW BELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL BELL; D. A. MCGOWAN; R. H. FUTRELL; JOHN DOE, various John/Jane Doe officers to be named later, 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-00-804-5-F) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 4, 2001 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMIL..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6229 KERLEW BELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL BELL; D. A. MCGOWAN; R. H. FUTRELL; JOHN DOE, various John/Jane Doe officers to be named later, 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-00-804-5-F) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 4, 2001 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kerlew Bell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Kerlew Bell 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 court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Bell v. Bell, No. CA-00-804-5-F (E.D.N.C. Jan. 17, 2001). 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
