Filed: Jul. 26, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6172 STEVEN W. BELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, State of North Carolina; PAUL L. JONES, Judge; G. DEWEY HUDSON; SAMPSON COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS; KEN H. CROW, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-714-5-H) Submitted: June 10, 2004 Decided: July 26, 2004 Before MICHAEL, T
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6172 STEVEN W. BELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, State of North Carolina; PAUL L. JONES, Judge; G. DEWEY HUDSON; SAMPSON COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS; KEN H. CROW, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-714-5-H) Submitted: June 10, 2004 Decided: July 26, 2004 Before MICHAEL, TR..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6172 STEVEN W. BELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, State of North Carolina; PAUL L. JONES, Judge; G. DEWEY HUDSON; SAMPSON COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS; KEN H. CROW, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-714-5-H) Submitted: June 10, 2004 Decided: July 26, 2004 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven W. Bell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Steven W. Bell appeals the district court’s order denying relief on 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 no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Bell v. Dep’t of Revenue, No. CA-03-714-5-H (E.D.N.C. Nov. 26, 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 -
