Filed: Jun. 28, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6107 MICHAEL SCOTT PERKINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus R. THOMAS BREEDLOVE; CHARLES HAWLEY; CNA/WESTERN SURETY COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:05-ct-00681-H) Submitted: June 22, 2006 Decided: June 28, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by un
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6107 MICHAEL SCOTT PERKINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus R. THOMAS BREEDLOVE; CHARLES HAWLEY; CNA/WESTERN SURETY COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:05-ct-00681-H) Submitted: June 22, 2006 Decided: June 28, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unp..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6107 MICHAEL SCOTT PERKINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus R. THOMAS BREEDLOVE; CHARLES HAWLEY; CNA/WESTERN SURETY COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:05-ct-00681-H) Submitted: June 22, 2006 Decided: June 28, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Scott Perkinson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael Scott Perkinson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint as barred by the applicable statute of limitations. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Perkinson v. Breedlove, No. 5:05-ct-00681-H (E.D.N.C. Dec. 8, 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 -
