Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Lancaster v. Monette, 01-7717 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7717 Visitors: 26
Filed: Mar. 21, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7717 JEFFREY D. LANCASTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JERRY MONETTE; NANCY TOOTLE; FRANK HENDERSON; JOHN POTTER; JOHN DOE; JAMES DOE; JIM DOE; BOB DOE; ROBERT DOE; LARRY NORMAN; LINDA BLOUNT; CRAVEN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; BONNIE DOE; WILLEY DOE; GEORGE DOE; BOBBY DOE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7717 JEFFREY D. LANCASTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JERRY MONETTE; NANCY TOOTLE; FRANK HENDERSON; JOHN POTTER; JOHN DOE; JAMES DOE; JIM DOE; BOB DOE; ROBERT DOE; LARRY NORMAN; LINDA BLOUNT; CRAVEN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; BONNIE DOE; WILLEY DOE; GEORGE DOE; BOBBY DOE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-481-5-F) Submitted: March 13, 2002 Decided: March 21, 2002 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey D. Lancaster, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Christopher Hart, SUMRELL, SUGG, CARMICHAEL, HICKS & HART, P.A., New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jeffrey D. Lancaster appeals the district court’s order de- nying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no re- versible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Lancaster v. Monette, No. CA-99-481-5-F (E.D.N.C. Sept. 24, 2001). 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
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