Filed: Sep. 27, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6728 MICHAEL RANKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GREGORY BONNER, Chief of Police, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-00-927-5-H) Submitted: September 19, 2002 Decided: September 27, 2002 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Ranki
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6728 MICHAEL RANKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GREGORY BONNER, Chief of Police, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-00-927-5-H) Submitted: September 19, 2002 Decided: September 27, 2002 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Rankin..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6728 MICHAEL RANKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GREGORY BONNER, Chief of Police, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-00-927-5-H) Submitted: September 19, 2002 Decided: September 27, 2002 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Rankins, Appellant Pro Se. Louis Phillip Hornthal, III, HORNTHAL, RILEY, ELLIS & MALAND, Elizabeth City, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael Rankins appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) 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 Rankins v. Bonner, No. CA-00-927-5-H (E.D.N.C. Apr. 25, 2002). We also deny Rankins’ “Motion of Transmission of the Record.” 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
