Filed: May 24, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2573 CHARLES L. FREEZE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Substituted for defendant, Dr. Donald Durham Volkmer; DONALD DURHAM VOLKMER, DR., 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-03-596-1) Submitted: May 19, 2005 Decided: May 24, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit J
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2573 CHARLES L. FREEZE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Substituted for defendant, Dr. Donald Durham Volkmer; DONALD DURHAM VOLKMER, DR., 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-03-596-1) Submitted: May 19, 2005 Decided: May 24, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Ju..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2573 CHARLES L. FREEZE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Substituted for defendant, Dr. Donald Durham Volkmer; DONALD DURHAM VOLKMER, DR., 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-03-596-1) Submitted: May 19, 2005 Decided: May 24, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles L. Freeze, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne P. Klauer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Charles L. Freeze appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Freeze v. United States, No. CA-03-596-1 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 15, 2004; Dec. 15, 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
