Filed: Jul. 21, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6436 RONALD ROGERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES R. VANCAMP; J. KIRK OSBORN; AMOS G. TYNDALL; MICHAEL E. BEALE, Judge; STAPLES HUGHES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-1111-1) Submitted: July 15, 2004 Decided: July 21, 2004 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6436 RONALD ROGERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES R. VANCAMP; J. KIRK OSBORN; AMOS G. TYNDALL; MICHAEL E. BEALE, Judge; STAPLES HUGHES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-1111-1) Submitted: July 15, 2004 Decided: July 21, 2004 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6436 RONALD ROGERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES R. VANCAMP; J. KIRK OSBORN; AMOS G. TYNDALL; MICHAEL E. BEALE, Judge; STAPLES HUGHES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-1111-1) Submitted: July 15, 2004 Decided: July 21, 2004 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Rogers, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ronald Rogers appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(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 Rogers v. Vancamp, No. CA-03- 1111-1 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 5, 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. DISMISSED - 2 -
