Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Hackler v. State of NC, 02-6353 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6353 Visitors: 49
Filed: Jun. 06, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6353 THOMAS M. HACKLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; RONALD L. MOORE, District Attorney; JOHN JOSEPH MILLER, III, BUNCOMBE COUNTY SHERIFF, Buncombe County Sheriff’s Office; BOBBY LEE MEDFORD, Defendants - Appellees. No. 02-6358 THOMAS M. HACKLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; BUNCOMBE COUNTY SHERIFF, Buncombe County Sheriff’s Office; JOHN JOSEPH MILLER, III; RONALD L. MOORE
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6353 THOMAS M. HACKLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; RONALD L. MOORE, District Attorney; JOHN JOSEPH MILLER, III, BUNCOMBE COUNTY SHERIFF, Buncombe County Sheriff’s Office; BOBBY LEE MEDFORD, Defendants - Appellees. No. 02-6358 THOMAS M. HACKLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; BUNCOMBE COUNTY SHERIFF, Buncombe County Sheriff’s Office; JOHN JOSEPH MILLER, III; RONALD L. MOORE, District Attorney; BOBBY LEE MEDFORD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-20-MU-1-2, CA-02-23-1-2-MU) Submitted: May 30, 2002 Decided: June 6, 2002 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas M. Hackler, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Thomas M. Hackler appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaints. We have reviewed the records and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm both orders on the reasoning of the district court. See Hackler v. North Carolina, Nos. CA-02-20-MU-1-2 & CA-02-23-1-2-MU (W.D.N.C., filed Jan. 31, 2002; entered Feb. 4, 2002). 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 3
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