Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Hill v. Hunt, 01-1781 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-1781 Visitors: 56
Filed: Oct. 31, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1781 THOMAS W. HILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JEFFREY P. HUNT; ATHENA BROOKS; C. RANDY POOL; ZORO J. GUICE, JR.; J. MARLENE HYATT; BOYD B. MASSAGEE; SHARON B. ALEXANDER; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-01-64-1-T) Submitted: October 19, 2001 Decided: October 31,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1781 THOMAS W. HILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JEFFREY P. HUNT; ATHENA BROOKS; C. RANDY POOL; ZORO J. GUICE, JR.; J. MARLENE HYATT; BOYD B. MASSAGEE; SHARON B. ALEXANDER; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-01-64-1-T) Submitted: October 19, 2001 Decided: October 31, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas W. Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Mark John Pletzke, Roy Cooper, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina; W. Scott Jones, LONG, PARKER, WARREN & JONES, P.A., Ashe- ville, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Thomas W. Hill appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint raising claims under 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1983, 1985 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001), and seeking injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief, including the removal of a criminal case from state court. 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. Hill v. Hunt, No. CA-01-64-1- T (W.D.N.C. filed May 15, 2001; entered May 16, 2001). We deny Hill’s motion for oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer