Filed: Aug. 08, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7254 PERRY L. CRAWFORD, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN CROW, Superintendent at Lincoln Correctional Center, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-05-41-1) Submitted: July 24, 2006 Decided: August 8, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curia
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7254 PERRY L. CRAWFORD, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN CROW, Superintendent at Lincoln Correctional Center, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-05-41-1) Submitted: July 24, 2006 Decided: August 8, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7254 PERRY L. CRAWFORD, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN CROW, Superintendent at Lincoln Correctional Center, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-05-41-1) Submitted: July 24, 2006 Decided: August 8, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Perry L. Crawford, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Perry L. Crawford, Sr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Crawford v. Crow, No. CA-05-41-1 (W.D.N.C. July 25, 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 -
