Filed: Feb. 28, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6025 KAM RICHARD CARPENTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROBERT BENFIELD; ANGELA TWITTY; JOHNATHAN STINES; DAVID G. BOBO, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-255-1-1-MU) Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 28, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6025 KAM RICHARD CARPENTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROBERT BENFIELD; ANGELA TWITTY; JOHNATHAN STINES; DAVID G. BOBO, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-255-1-1-MU) Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 28, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by u..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6025 KAM RICHARD CARPENTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROBERT BENFIELD; ANGELA TWITTY; JOHNATHAN STINES; DAVID G. BOBO, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-255-1-1-MU) Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 28, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kam Richard Carpenter, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Kam Richard Carpenter 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 deny Carpenter’s motion for a certificate of appealability as unnecessary and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Carpenter v. Benfield, No. CA-02-255-1-1-MU (W.D.N.C. filed Nov. 26, 2002; entered Nov. 27, 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
