Filed: Oct. 20, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6858 CHARLES W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; MICHAEL EASLEY, Governor; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; GEORGE KENWORTHY; SERGEANT COGDELL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-04-182-5-H) Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 20, 2004 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SH
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6858 CHARLES W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; MICHAEL EASLEY, Governor; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; GEORGE KENWORTHY; SERGEANT COGDELL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-04-182-5-H) Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 20, 2004 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHE..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6858 CHARLES W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; MICHAEL EASLEY, Governor; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; GEORGE KENWORTHY; SERGEANT COGDELL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-04-182-5-H) Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 20, 2004 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles W. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Charles W. Johnson 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 Johnson v. North Carolina, No. CA-04-182-5-H (E.D.N.C. May 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. AFFIRMED - 2 -
