Filed: Jul. 14, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7492 ANTHONY PAYNE SILER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL W. BELL; R. H. FUTRELL; R. WHITE; T. L. UNDERWOOD; SARGEANT JOHNSON; SARGEANT SMITH; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BARRETT; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER STALLINGS; R. STRICKLAND; HATTIE B. PIMPONG, 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-02-534-5) Su
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7492 ANTHONY PAYNE SILER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL W. BELL; R. H. FUTRELL; R. WHITE; T. L. UNDERWOOD; SARGEANT JOHNSON; SARGEANT SMITH; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BARRETT; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER STALLINGS; R. STRICKLAND; HATTIE B. PIMPONG, 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-02-534-5) Sub..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7492 ANTHONY PAYNE SILER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL W. BELL; R. H. FUTRELL; R. WHITE; T. L. UNDERWOOD; SARGEANT JOHNSON; SARGEANT SMITH; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BARRETT; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER STALLINGS; R. STRICKLAND; HATTIE B. PIMPONG, 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-02-534-5) Submitted: June 23, 2004 Decided: July 14, 2004 Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Payne Siler, Appellant Pro Se. James Philip Allen, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Anthony Payne Siler 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 for the reasons stated by the district court. See Siler v. Bell, No. CA-02-534-5 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 8, 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 -