Filed: Oct. 12, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7172 MICHAEL BRADLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus H. DAVID BURTON; SETH HUNT; LAWRENCE THOMPSON; JOHN DOE; TED NELSON; HAE JIN CHUNG; SHARON WHITAKER; BARBARA FRADY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-114-1-MU) Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 12, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTI
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7172 MICHAEL BRADLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus H. DAVID BURTON; SETH HUNT; LAWRENCE THOMPSON; JOHN DOE; TED NELSON; HAE JIN CHUNG; SHARON WHITAKER; BARBARA FRADY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-114-1-MU) Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 12, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7172 MICHAEL BRADLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus H. DAVID BURTON; SETH HUNT; LAWRENCE THOMPSON; JOHN DOE; TED NELSON; HAE JIN CHUNG; SHARON WHITAKER; BARBARA FRADY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-114-1-MU) Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 12, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Bradley, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael Bradley appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) 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. Bradley v. Burton, No. CA-01-114-1-MU (W.D.N.C. July 2, 2001). We deny Bradley’s motion for appointment a guardian ad litem. 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
