Filed: Dec. 06, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7147 LARRY A. TOLSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STEVE WALLACE, Defendant - Appellee, and JERRY MONTEE, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-99-8315-H) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 6, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. L
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7147 LARRY A. TOLSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STEVE WALLACE, Defendant - Appellee, and JERRY MONTEE, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-99-8315-H) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 6, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. La..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7147
LARRY A. TOLSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
STEVE WALLACE,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
JERRY MONTEE,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
Judge. (CA-99-8315-H)
Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 6, 2001
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry A. Tolson, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Christopher Hart, SUMRELL,
SUGG, CARMICHAEL, HICKS & HART, P.A., New Bern, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Larry A. Tolson 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. See Tolson v. Wallace, No. CA-99-8315-H
(E.D.N.C. June 12, 2001). We deny Tolson’s request for mandamus
relief. 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