Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Fowler v. Bradley, 02-7672 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-7672 Visitors: 37
Filed: Feb. 26, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7672 HARRY JAMES FOWLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEBBIE BRADLEY, Detective; ANDREW JENNINGS, District Attorney; SAM J. ERVIN, IV; ANITA L. MATTHEWS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-89-5-2MU) Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 26, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGO
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7672 HARRY JAMES FOWLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEBBIE BRADLEY, Detective; ANDREW JENNINGS, District Attorney; SAM J. ERVIN, IV; ANITA L. MATTHEWS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-89-5-2MU) Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 26, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harry James Fowler, Appellant Pro Se. John Hamilton Watters, Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Samuel James Ervin, IV, Morganton, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Harry James Fowler appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Fowler v. Bradley, No. CA-02-89-5-2MU (W.D.N.C. Sept. 25, 2002; filed Oct. 18, 2002, entered Oct. 21, 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
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