Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Williams v. United States, 01-7044 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7044 Visitors: 21
Filed: Dec. 05, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7044 JAMES E. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; STATE OF NORTH CARO- LINA; STATE OF GEORGIA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-01-325-CT) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 5, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by un
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7044 JAMES E. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; STATE OF NORTH CARO- LINA; STATE OF GEORGIA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-01-325-CT) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 5, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James E. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James E. Williams appeals from the district court’s orders directing him to particularize his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint and dismissing his action for failure to comply. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.* Williams v. United States, No. CA-01-325- CT (E.D.N.C. filed May 30, 2001; entered June 5, 2001). We dis- pense 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 * The order to particularize also denied relief on Williams’ claims pertaining to an allegedly illegal extradition. Williams failed to address this portion of the district court’s order in his informal brief, and therefore further review of these claims is waived. 4th Cir. Local R. 34(b). 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