Filed: Mar. 02, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7525 STUART A. MIDDLETON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus G. A. JONES; J. SCHIFFIANO; JOHN DAVIS, Sergeant; H. WEBSTER; S. WARREN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-406) Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 2, 2006 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unp
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7525 STUART A. MIDDLETON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus G. A. JONES; J. SCHIFFIANO; JOHN DAVIS, Sergeant; H. WEBSTER; S. WARREN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-406) Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 2, 2006 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpu..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7525 STUART A. MIDDLETON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus G. A. JONES; J. SCHIFFIANO; JOHN DAVIS, Sergeant; H. WEBSTER; S. WARREN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-406) Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 2, 2006 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stuart A. Middleton, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Stuart A. Middleton appeals from the district court’s order denying his third motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Middleton v. Jones, No. CA-04-406 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 18, 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 - 2 -
