Filed: Aug. 23, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6558 CURTIS NIXON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WOLFE, Officer, Defendant - Appellee, and CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-192) Submitted: July 31, 2002 Decided: August 23, 2002 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6558 CURTIS NIXON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WOLFE, Officer, Defendant - Appellee, and CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-192) Submitted: July 31, 2002 Decided: August 23, 2002 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6558 CURTIS NIXON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WOLFE, Officer, Defendant - Appellee, and CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-192) Submitted: July 31, 2002 Decided: August 23, 2002 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis Nixon, Appellant Pro Se. Frank Bayard Aycock, III, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Curtis Nixon appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2002) 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. Nixon v. Wolfe, No. CA-00-192 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 14, 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 2
