Filed: Feb. 16, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7393 PAUL EMMANUEL PELHAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KEITH CAIN; STEVEN LANIER; MARSHALL EVANS; CLINT SIMPSON; MICKEY SMITH, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-134-5-H) Submitted: January 28, 2005 Decided: February 16, 2005 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by u
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7393 PAUL EMMANUEL PELHAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KEITH CAIN; STEVEN LANIER; MARSHALL EVANS; CLINT SIMPSON; MICKEY SMITH, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-134-5-H) Submitted: January 28, 2005 Decided: February 16, 2005 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by un..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7393 PAUL EMMANUEL PELHAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KEITH CAIN; STEVEN LANIER; MARSHALL EVANS; CLINT SIMPSON; MICKEY SMITH, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-134-5-H) Submitted: January 28, 2005 Decided: February 16, 2005 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul Emmanuel Pelham, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Allen Davis, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Paul Emmanuel Pelham 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 Pelham v. Cain, No. CA-03-134-5-H (E.D.N.C. Aug. 13, 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 -
