Filed: Sep. 24, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7210 TOMMY RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BOYD BENNETT; JOSEPH H. LOFTON; WILLIAM L. BURDEN, JR.; P. ASBELL; R. BROADNAX, 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-04-211-5-BO) Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 24, 2004 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7210 TOMMY RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BOYD BENNETT; JOSEPH H. LOFTON; WILLIAM L. BURDEN, JR.; P. ASBELL; R. BROADNAX, 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-04-211-5-BO) Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 24, 2004 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affir..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7210 TOMMY RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BOYD BENNETT; JOSEPH H. LOFTON; WILLIAM L. BURDEN, JR.; P. ASBELL; R. BROADNAX, 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-04-211-5-BO) Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 24, 2004 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tommy Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Tommy Richardson 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 Richardson v. Bennett, No. CA-04-211-5- BO (E.D.N.C. June 21, 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 -
