Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Bryson v. Johnston, 03-6070 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-6070 Visitors: 18
Filed: Aug. 06, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6070 LESTER DANIEL BRYSON; JOHN FRANK BOWEN, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus ROBERT P. JOHNSTON, State Superior Court Judge; FORREST D. BRIDGES, State Superior Court Judge; GRAHAM C. MULLEN, Federal District Court Judge, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CA-02-252-1-2) Submitted: July 16, 2003 D
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6070 LESTER DANIEL BRYSON; JOHN FRANK BOWEN, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus ROBERT P. JOHNSTON, State Superior Court Judge; FORREST D. BRIDGES, State Superior Court Judge; GRAHAM C. MULLEN, Federal District Court Judge, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CA-02-252-1-2) Submitted: July 16, 2003 Decided: August 6, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lester Daniel Bryson, John Frank Bowen, Appellants Pro Se. Gerald Patrick Murphy, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Paul Bradford Taylor, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Lester Daniel Bryson and John Frank Bowen appeal the district court’s order dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Bryson v. Johnston, No. CA-02-252-1-2 (W.D.N.C. filed Nov. 22, 2002 & entered Nov. 25, 2002). We deny Appellants’ motions for appointment of counsel, for oral argument, and to dismiss as untimely the informal brief of Appellees Johnston and Bridges. We further deny as moot Appellants’ motion to extend time to file PLRA documents and their informal brief. 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