Filed: May 03, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7788 CHARLES E. HINTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus AMY M. SIFFORD; RICHARD W. JACOBSEN, JR.; PATRICK M. MARTIN; RAMONA MASTERTON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-541-1-3-MU) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 3, 2001 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7788 CHARLES E. HINTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus AMY M. SIFFORD; RICHARD W. JACOBSEN, JR.; PATRICK M. MARTIN; RAMONA MASTERTON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-541-1-3-MU) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 3, 2001 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior C..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7788 CHARLES E. HINTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus AMY M. SIFFORD; RICHARD W. JACOBSEN, JR.; PATRICK M. MARTIN; RAMONA MASTERTON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-541-1-3-MU) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 3, 2001 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles E. Hinton, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Charles E. Hinton appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) 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 Hinton v. Sifford, No. CA-00-541-1-3-MU (W.D.N.C. Nov. 15, 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
