Filed: Feb. 05, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7107 RAMON PORTOREAL-QUEZADA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIE SCOTT, Warden; LIEUTENANT BRANCH, Correctional Officer at Rivers Correctional Institution; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER FAISON, at Rivers Correctional Institution, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-319-5-H) Submitted: January 29, 2004
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7107 RAMON PORTOREAL-QUEZADA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIE SCOTT, Warden; LIEUTENANT BRANCH, Correctional Officer at Rivers Correctional Institution; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER FAISON, at Rivers Correctional Institution, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-319-5-H) Submitted: January 29, 2004 D..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7107
RAMON PORTOREAL-QUEZADA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WILLIE SCOTT, Warden; LIEUTENANT BRANCH,
Correctional Officer at Rivers Correctional
Institution; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER FAISON, at
Rivers Correctional Institution,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (CA-03-319-5-H)
Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 5, 2004
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ramon Portoreal-Quezada, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ramon Portoreal-Quezada appeals the district court’s
order dismissing as frivolous his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the
record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we
dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See
Portoreal-Quezada v. Scott, No. CA-03-319-5-H (E.D.N.C. May 29,
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.
DISMISSED
- 2 -