Filed: Dec. 20, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7441 LARRY MCLEOD, a/k/a Larry Pully, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEAN R. WALKER, Superintendent, Marion Correctional Institution, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-195-1-MU) Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 20, 2002 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirm
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7441 LARRY MCLEOD, a/k/a Larry Pully, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEAN R. WALKER, Superintendent, Marion Correctional Institution, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-195-1-MU) Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 20, 2002 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirme..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7441 LARRY MCLEOD, a/k/a Larry Pully, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEAN R. WALKER, Superintendent, Marion Correctional Institution, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-195-1-MU) Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 20, 2002 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry McLeod, Appellant Pro Se. Mary S. Mercer, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Larry McLeod appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See McLeod v. Walker, No. CA-01- 195-1-MU (W.D.N.C. Sept. 18, 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
