Filed: Jul. 23, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6754 TIMMIE E. LOCKLEAR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BOYD BENNETT; HATTIE PIMPONG; SIDNEY HARKLEROAD; LEIGH PIPPEN; APRIL SHOUP; DAVID BOBO; WILLIE JOBE; DENNIS EDNEY; WILFORD FOX, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-31-1-1-MU) Submitted: July 15, 2004 Decided: July 23, 2004 Before MOTZ
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6754 TIMMIE E. LOCKLEAR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BOYD BENNETT; HATTIE PIMPONG; SIDNEY HARKLEROAD; LEIGH PIPPEN; APRIL SHOUP; DAVID BOBO; WILLIE JOBE; DENNIS EDNEY; WILFORD FOX, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-31-1-1-MU) Submitted: July 15, 2004 Decided: July 23, 2004 Before MOTZ,..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6754 TIMMIE E. LOCKLEAR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BOYD BENNETT; HATTIE PIMPONG; SIDNEY HARKLEROAD; LEIGH PIPPEN; APRIL SHOUP; DAVID BOBO; WILLIE JOBE; DENNIS EDNEY; WILFORD FOX, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-31-1-1-MU) Submitted: July 15, 2004 Decided: July 23, 2004 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timmie R. Locklear, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Timmie R. Locklear appeals the district court’s order dismissing his action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Locklear v. Bennett, No. CA-04-31-1-1-MU (W.D.N.C. filed Apr. 2, 2004 & entered Apr. 6, 2004). 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 -
