Filed: Jun. 26, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6573 JAMES C. MCNEILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH JONES; SERGEANT MCCOY; R. SMITH, Officer; OFFICER JOHNSON; THOMAS AKER, Lieutenant, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-252) Submitted: June 11, 2003 Decided: June 26, 2003 Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affir
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6573 JAMES C. MCNEILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH JONES; SERGEANT MCCOY; R. SMITH, Officer; OFFICER JOHNSON; THOMAS AKER, Lieutenant, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-252) Submitted: June 11, 2003 Decided: June 26, 2003 Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirm..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6573 JAMES C. MCNEILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH JONES; SERGEANT MCCOY; R. SMITH, Officer; OFFICER JOHNSON; THOMAS AKER, Lieutenant, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-252) Submitted: June 11, 2003 Decided: June 26, 2003 Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James C. McNeill, Appellant Pro Se. John Payne Scherer, II, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James C. McNeill 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 McNeill v. Jones, No. CA- 02-252 (E.D.N.C. filed Mar. 25, 2003 & entered Mar. 27, 2003). 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
