Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Horton v. Shull, 05-1566 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-1566 Visitors: 37
Filed: Aug. 31, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1566 JOHN D. HORTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DANIEL J. SHULL; ANITA M. MARTIN-JONES; MARCUS S. RINEHART; CHARLES A. BUSS; AIRMAN CASTILLO; AGENT LAZZARO, AFOSI; AIRMAN CURRY; AIRMAN EDWARDS; AIRMAN ROBERTSON; AIRMAN ROSEBAUM; AIRMAN BALZER; AIRMAN HESS; CAPT. PERSICO; MATTHEW COAKLEY; FOUR UNKNOWN NAMED EMPLOYEES OF 43RD MEDICAL GROUP; AIRMAN HESS, 43rd Medical Group; AIRMAN DITTMER; THREE UNKNOWN NAMED EMPLOYEES OF D
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1566 JOHN D. HORTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DANIEL J. SHULL; ANITA M. MARTIN-JONES; MARCUS S. RINEHART; CHARLES A. BUSS; AIRMAN CASTILLO; AGENT LAZZARO, AFOSI; AIRMAN CURRY; AIRMAN EDWARDS; AIRMAN ROBERTSON; AIRMAN ROSEBAUM; AIRMAN BALZER; AIRMAN HESS; CAPT. PERSICO; MATTHEW COAKLEY; FOUR UNKNOWN NAMED EMPLOYEES OF 43RD MEDICAL GROUP; AIRMAN HESS, 43rd Medical Group; AIRMAN DITTMER; THREE UNKNOWN NAMED EMPLOYEES OF DOROTHEA DIX HOSPITAL; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-04-227-BO) Submitted: August 25, 2005 Decided: August 31, 2005 Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John D. Horton, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua B. Royster, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: John D. Horton appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action for failure to comply with a court order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Horton v. Shull, No. CA-04-227-BO (E.D.N.C. Mar. 28, 2005). 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 - 3 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer