Filed: Mar. 06, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8069 CHARLTON E. NEWTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGE H. ERWIN, JR., Sheriff of Henderson County; EDDIE PRUETT, Captain of Henderson County Jail; PAT SUMMEY, Lieutenant in charge of Henderson County Jail, Defendants - Appellees, and HENDERSON COUNTY JAIL, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-47
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8069 CHARLTON E. NEWTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGE H. ERWIN, JR., Sheriff of Henderson County; EDDIE PRUETT, Captain of Henderson County Jail; PAT SUMMEY, Lieutenant in charge of Henderson County Jail, Defendants - Appellees, and HENDERSON COUNTY JAIL, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-47-..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8069 CHARLTON E. NEWTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGE H. ERWIN, JR., Sheriff of Henderson County; EDDIE PRUETT, Captain of Henderson County Jail; PAT SUMMEY, Lieutenant in charge of Henderson County Jail, Defendants - Appellees, and HENDERSON COUNTY JAIL, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-47-01-MU) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 6, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charlton E. Newton, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Douglas MacLatchie, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Charlton E. Newton 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 Newton v. Erwin, No. CA-01-47-01-MU (W.D.N.C. Nov. 13, 2001). We further deny Newton’s motion for the appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2